> - if there's no 'failure record' run all
> - if there's some record, first test those that have failed the last time
> - if they still fail, stop there
> - if there's no further failures, rerun the whole set
That's a pretty cool idea. I haven't seen this kind of behavior
before but it make
On Oct 2, 5:10 am, Harro wrote:
> Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break
> another one?
My philosophy on testing is that no one will do it unless it's blazing
fast, easy to use, and doesn't punish you.
My goal where I work was to make testing so simple that the othe
I'd really love to see a Selenium or Windmill integration into the
Django testing framework. That would be really fun to demonstrate in
class too when you get done. :D This idea was listed on
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/SummerOfCode2009.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~---
> From the point of view of encouraging the usage of nose, either would
> work fine. I think this is fits in to the conversation at DjangoCon
> about how we should go about encouraging Django users to explore the
> wider Python ecosystem. The important thing is that we can have some
> official (or
I'll see if I can talk Jeff into adding what he's got as a start to
this. It looks solid to me.
Ticket and patches forthcoming...
On Sep 29, 2:47 pm, Simon Willison wrote:
> On Sep 29, 7:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote:
>
> > TEST_RUNNER = 'django.contrib.test.nose.run_
http://blog.jeffbalogh.org/post/57653515/nose-test-runner-for-django
It's certainly been done and doesn't require changes to Django.
On Sep 29, 1:34 pm, Rob Madole wrote:
> Ok, --failfast would be nice too :D, I think I remember seeing a
> ticket on that. So make that 4 fe
I think
it'd doable.
Eh?
Rob
On Sep 29, 1:23 pm, Rob Madole wrote:
> Yep, I use the pdb stuff too. That would be handy.
>
> The way this works in nose is through the testid plugin. Typically you
> do this:
>
> nosetests --with-id --failed
>
> This will create a file c
p 29, 12:58 pm, Simon Willison wrote:
> On Sep 29, 5:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote:
>
> > I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I
> > really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the
> > ones that caused a problem.
>
> > I
I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I
really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the
ones that caused a problem.
I'm thinking it would look something like this
./manage.py test --failed
Does this sound worthwhile to anybody?
Rob
--~--~---
Hmm. I just spent some time looking at #11828, and I don't think the
"syncing one db at a time" will work. The first problem this causes
is with anything that subscribes to the post sync signal. Content
type does this, so it can create permissions. If we sync one db at a
time, I don't see how
10 matches
Mail list logo
