Hi Carl,
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Carl Meyer wrote:
I don't think this should be fixed in the test runner itself; in
general, file-path test labels _should_ be interpreted as relative to
wherever you are running the tests from.
But it should be fixed in the
Hi Chris,
On May 18, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>> I think Travis is unhappy about something in this commit. Any ideas?
>>
>> ==
>> ERROR:
Hi Chris,
On May 18, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Another odd behaviour of the new test runner. This runs the tests, but fails
> to add the test app to INSTALLED_APPS, so they all fail because their tables
> are not created:
>
>PYTHONPATH=.. python -Wall
Hi all,
On Fri, 10 May 2013, Carl Meyer wrote:
I merged this patch tonight. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Now
let's see how the CI servers feel about it...
I think Travis is unhappy about something in this commit. Any ideas?
Russ & Carl,
I'm interested in this one, so I sketched up a potential avenue tonight
(https://github.com/toastdriven/django/compare/check_setup). I actually
implemented Russ' setup first, but ran into a couple issues, so I pared it
down into an "opt-in" scheme. If there's a feeling like
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:38:23 PM UTC+2, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> No good reason, just an oversight I think. If that's all that's needed to
> make the CI happy, feel free to change it, should be a simple fix.
>
Perfect, pushed a fix, let's see what jenkins says.
--
You received this message
Hi Florian,
On May 11, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> before I read all the tickets etc; why does runtests.py not use the
> TEST_RUNNER from settings.py (see
>
Hi Carl,
before I read all the tickets etc; why does runtests.py not use the
TEST_RUNNER from settings.py (see
https://github.com/django/django/commit/9012833af857e081b515ce760685b157638efcef#L60L149)?
We'd need that for jenkins to produce xml files as output.
Thanks,
Florian
--
You
Not good, at least our Jenkins runner which should generate xml output
doesn't like it :/
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 5:36:55 AM UTC+2, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> I merged this patch tonight. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Now let's
> see how the CI servers feel about it...
>
> Carl
>
> On
Wow, this is awesome! Thanks so much guys. Too long have I dreamt of the day
when I could include tests for my "lib" and "util", etc. without having to
couple them to one app or another. I'm so excited that this was added so
quickly.
Thanks
Yo-yo
--
You received this message because you
I merged this patch tonight. Thanks to everyone who contributed! Now let's
see how the CI servers feel about it...
Carl
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:00:56 PM UTC-4, Carl Meyer wrote:
>
> Preston Timmons and I have been working the last several weeks to get
> the test discovery branch (#17365)
On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:15:02 PM UTC-4, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Carl Meyer > wrote:
>
>> Hi Russ,
>>
>> On 05/09/2013 04:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>> > Great work Carl and Preston! (And everyone else who had a hand in the
>> >
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Hi Russ,
>
> On 05/09/2013 04:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > Great work Carl and Preston! (And everyone else who had a hand in the
> > patch - I know this has been kicking around for a while now)
>
> Thanks for the
On 05/09/2013 07:50 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Just want to say that I'm happy with a "fast transition".
>
> Is there a possibility we can detect the case where the tests might be
> broken (how might they be?) and print a helpful error message?
Two kinds of potential breakage:
- The most common
Hi Russ,
On 05/09/2013 04:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> Great work Carl and Preston! (And everyone else who had a hand in the
> patch - I know this has been kicking around for a while now)
Thanks for the reminder; I should have mentioned that Mahdi Yusuf did
the initial draft patch, based
Hi Tom,
On 05/09/2013 03:27 AM, Tom Christie wrote:
> * Will it be possible to globally configure the default file/path pattern?
> Jannis's django-discover-runner includes support for a
> `TEST_DISCOVER_PATTERN` - is there anything similar, or just the command
> line `--patterns` option? The
Just want to say that I'm happy with a "fast transition".
Is there a possibility we can detect the case where the tests might be
broken (how might they be?) and print a helpful error message?
Andrew
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
>
> On
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Preston Timmons and I have been working the last several weeks to get
> the test discovery branch (#17365) ready for merge, and I think we now
> have a pull request ready for consideration:
>
Hi Carl,
Excellent, excellent stuff - many thanks to both yourself and Preston.
Couple of questions:
* Will it be possible to globally configure the default file/path pattern?
Jannis's django-discover-runner includes support for a
`TEST_DISCOVER_PATTERN` - is there anything similar, or
Hi Anssi,
On 05/08/2013 03:31 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> It would be really nice to be able to use same syntax for running a
> single Django's testcase at least for a while. I expect that there
> will be problems if inspecting how a given test case behaves in older
> versions compared to HEAD.
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Jacob has suggested that back-compat breaks in test-running are not as
> serious as in production code, and that we should just switch to the new
> test runner by default in Django 1.6.
I still think this. I don't see the need
It would be really nice to be able to use same syntax for running a
single Django's testcase at least for a while. I expect that there
will be problems if inspecting how a given test case behaves in older
versions compared to HEAD. Also, bisecting over the test case renaming
boundary will be
On 8 mai 2013, at 23:00, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Jacob has suggested that back-compat breaks in test-running are not as
> serious as in production code, and that we should just switch to the new
> test runner by default in Django 1.6. This is what the pull request
> currently does.
On May 8, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> Jacob has suggested that back-compat breaks in test-running are not as
> serious as in production code, and that we should just switch to the new
> test runner by default in Django 1.6. This is what the pull request
> currently
24 matches
Mail list logo