I am playing around with using IronPython to replace a custom language
we use to define tasks and suites of tasks for an in-house automated
testing framework. Currently we have something like
task FooTask {
cmdline = "...";
file somefile.txt = (.
This will have some content, and even supports variables: $VAR1
.)
}
table SomeTable = {
VAR1
1
2
3
}
suite SomeSuite {
FooTask(SomeTable);
}
This would permute FooTask with VAR1 for each row in the table.
This is a bit more information than you probably need, but it will
give you the feel for what I am trying to do.
I was thinking I could reuse the objects that I now create in the
parser of the custom language as base types for Python object
class FooTask(Task):
def __init__(self, variables):
self.SetCmdLine("....")
self.Files.Add("somefile.txt", "This will have some content,
and even supports variables: $VAR1")
class SomeSuite(Suite):
def __init__(self):
self.AddItem(FooTask() * [ { "VAR1" : "1" }, {"VAR1" : "2" },
{ "VAR1" : "3" } ])
I can easily implement __mult__ and other such operations to handle
the permutation and other operations I currently support.
Now, what I _think_ I need metaclasses for is that when FooTask or
SomeSuite is created, I need to be able to add the instance to my
symbol table so I can then create the output that I need to.
Am I thinking incorrectly about the need for metaclasses? I would like
to keep as much of the details as possible away from the users, so I
was thinking if I could hook into the object creation, I could add the
instance to my symbol table in the metaclass. For this, I would need
to set __metaclass__ on the base classes (Task and Suite), which are
.NET objects, is this doable?
Am I trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in general?
Thanks for reading my ramblings :-)
slide
--
Website: http://earl-of-code.com
_______________________________________________
Ironpython-users mailing list
Ironpython-users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/ironpython-users
