On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ralf Gommers <[email protected]> wrote: > That indeed looks much more useful than the nose version. I searched a > bit on the ipython-devel list but couldn't find too much discussion > about the implementation. Would it be at all possible to let it not > stop after the first failure? Either way, I think we should copy it.
I tried very hard and never managed to find a way to make it work in that mode, unfortunately. Not saying it's categorically impossible, but given the current architecture of unittest and nose, it wasn't easy to do with code that wasn't super intrusive. You'd need to modify a lot of how unittest and nose execute tests and record failures to be able to change that, I'm afraid. Since I wanted a *lightweight* extension that would work cleanly on top of nose/unittest and would be easy to maintain moving forward, I settled for this. Ideally this would be done right at the unittest level, but I don't have the bandwidth to pursue that, I'm afraid. HTH, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
