On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 05:23:01AM -0700, Istvan Albert wrote: -> On Apr 21, 1:23?am, "C. Titus Brown" <c...@msu.edu> wrote: -> -> > the tests running in unittest, and +1 on the goal of making them run -> > within nose, too (which is 90% done -- it requires only a fairly trivial -> > nose plugin). ? -> -> Won't all unittest run directly with nose? I think it is great to -> integrate with nose, the only concern I usually have is to not have it -> as requirement. But that is also fine if you all believe that makes -> life easier.
Yes, nose is capable of running any unittest code. -> My only suggestion is to not underestimate the cognitive overhead -> nose imposes. Just because it makes sense to you, it won't make sense -> to others, thus in the end reduces the number and quality of tests. I -> for one still have not fully wrapped my mind around the concept of -> using python exceptions like AttributeError to signal that tests -> should be skipped. Won't that also trigger if I I should run the test -> but I actually do have an error in my code. Re cognitive overload, how many command line options does runtest need to have before it has the same (or more) cognitive overload as nose, with the disavantage of no large community of users?? We're up to something like 5 different "behavioral modes" of runtest and we're talking about adding several more! nose (and unittest, in python 2.7/3.1) uses a special SkipTest exception, not AttributeError. --titus -- C. Titus Brown, c...@msu.edu --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to pygr-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pygr-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
