On May 30, 5:40 pm, Wyatt Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 30, 2:31 pm, Eugueny Kontsevoy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > They work, but we needed to have our existing 0.9.7 Pylons applications to > > work and they don't access config objects via TestResponse. In fact 90% of > > our tests are units, i.e. they don't issue request/response, they just do > > "from pylons import config" and test business logic in isolation from > > request/response machinery. > > Going a little off-topic here, but in my view, business logic > generally shouldn't rely on Web app configuration.
That's both unhelpful to the discussion and nonsensical. In practice "business logic" can easily depend on configurable parameters. E.g. I'd like a test to ensure my account gets locked out after X failed login attempts. X is configurable. I've griped about this before, but I think the biggest (only?) problem that comes up repeatedly for us w/ Pylons is the inaccessibility of these "special" globals from tests (without using response/request objects). Stacked object proxies. I dream of a day (or a fork) when these are either a thing of the past, or disabled by default. (Mike has given me some pointers in the past, but I still maintain that writing tests shouldn't be so hard. -- and one shouldn't be forced to use the WebTest framework, which IMO is inadequate for services applications.) Hans -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
