On 3/3/10 10:46 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Chris McDonough wrote:
>> Here's the set of commands that get run to test e.g. repoze.bfg:
>> /opt/Python-2.6.4/bin/virtualenv --no-site-packages r$SVN_REVISION/
>> r$SVN_REVISION/bin/easy_install nose coverage nosexcover
> No sex cover, ey? That sounds like an STD risk.


>> cd repoze.bfg-trunk
>> ../r$SVN_REVISION/bin/python setup.py develop
>> ../r$SVN_REVISION/bin/python setup.py nosetests --with-xunit \
>>        --with-xcoverage
> Cool. I guess there's a standard there somewhere that both Cobertura and
> nose adheres to.

I think Ned B. added Cobertura-compat output to coverage.py for just this 
purpose (and it's exposed via nose by --with-xcoverage).

> I wonder how hard it is to run Zope/Plone tests through
> nose in this way. I'm guessing quite.

I suspect it would be a "project".  At one point, though, I made the ZODB tests 
runnable via "setup.py test" however (previously they were hardwired to be run 
via "bin/test" in a buildout), so it is possible to do.

Might be better though to try to convince zope.testing's coverage support to 
output a coverage.xml file.  That's really all that's necessary; I forgot to 
mention that in the "Cobertura xml report pattern" box in the Hudson UI, we 
have "**/coverage.xml".

- C
Repoze-dev mailing list

Reply via email to