Hello,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:52:59 +0200
Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki wrote:
> Hi
>
> Mocker and mock are totally different. Mock is in stdlib since 3.3 so
> it is likely the future but I found mocker easier to use and
> understand (I'm also the current maintainer for mocker, if inactive a
> bit).
Hello,
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:53:17 +0200
Milo Casagrande wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> one of the discussion we had during connect was to find (and use) a
> common testing framework for unit (and maybe beyond) tests.
> What we should use is probably a framework that still supports all the
> uni
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Zygmunt Bazyli Krynicki
wrote:
>
> Mocker and mock are totally different. Mock is in stdlib since 3.3 so it is
> likely the future but I found mocker easier to use and understand (I'm also
> the current maintainer for mocker, if inactive a bit).
>
> As for nose/py
Hi
Mocker and mock are totally different. Mock is in stdlib since 3.3 so it is
likely the future but I found mocker easier to use and understand (I'm also
the current maintainer for mocker, if inactive a bit).
As for nose/py.test: both are a bit non standard. I would strongly
recommend that you u
Hello everyone,
one of the discussion we had during connect was to find (and use) a
common testing framework for unit (and maybe beyond) tests.
What we should use is probably a framework that still supports all the
unittest based tests we already have in our projects.
Following also other people
