Hi Sandy! Comments inline :) On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Sandy Walsh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi y'all, > I'm working on the Admin API blueprint > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/admin-only-api > And while looking at the code I discovered that the openstack API unittests > were only available via nosetests and don't get run from runtests.py. The > reason being that nosetests uses an auto-discovery mechanism, while py2.6 > unittest has no such mechanism. The openstack api has the only sub-module > tests currently in nova. I'm sure there will be more. To make these tests > compatible with unittest isn't a difficult task. > unittest2 (a backport of py2.7+/3.x unittest) does bring this functionality > to py2.6. Soren quoted Robert Clarke about not using nose (I think this blog > post covers his
s/Clarke/Collins/ :) His IRC nick is "lifeless" on Freenode. > concerns): http://www.advogato.org/person/robertc/diary.html?start=126 Nose > also has more readable asserts, but we don't seem to be utilizing them > currently. True, though we could :) > This made me question our use of nose. > From IRC over the weekend I learned of some nose perks: > <joshuamckenty> two or three reasons I like it > <joshuamckenty> 1. dump to pdb on error > <joshuamckenty> 2. log and stdout capture > <joshuamckenty> 3. coverage metrics > <joshuamckenty> 4. xunit output for hudson graphs > <joshuamckenty> (I haven't looked into how many of those we could get > elsewhere) > Which are all very good features to have. Indeed. > I have no preference of test framework, but would like to know what the > sanctioned approach is? > 1. Assume nose drives the tests ... and we can use its extended features > 2. Assume nose drives the tests ... but we must remain backward compatible > with unittest > 3. Assume unittest drives the tests (don't assume auto-discovery is > available) > 4. Assume unittest2 drives the tests (uses 2.7+ auto-discovery) > 5. Something else? > And if Twisted is going away, perhaps Trial is going away? How does this > affect our decision? > Perhaps given our extensive use of third-party libraries and the Continuous > Integration/Metrics demands we have, standardizing on nose and modifying > run_tests to launch nosetests seems appropriate (opt#1)? I would prefer option #1 and to get rid of run_tests.py entirely. With nose, it's not useful at all. So, I would change the run_tests.sh script to run nosetests instead of run_tests.py...this is actually what we've already done in the Glance project (which uses many common Nova modules, but not the test runner) -jay > Thoughts? > -Sandy > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or > embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of > the > individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless > otherwise > expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of > Rackspace. > Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is > prohibited. > If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by > e-mail > at [email protected], and delete the original message. > Your cooperation is appreciated. > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
