Re: pytest integration for the notmuch test suite

[David Bremner]

Floris Bruynooghe  writes:

> On Sun, Mar 25 2018, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> Here's one approach. A given pytest "file" can be embedded in a normal
>> (for us) test script.  As I write this, it occurs to me you might be
>> thinking of embedding unit tests in the bindings source files; that
>> would be easy to add, something along the lines of
>>
>> test_begin_subtest "python bindings embedded unit tests"
>> test_expect_success "${NOTMUCH_PYTEST} 
>> ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch"
>
> I was trying to construct something where a full pytest run on one
> python version was one subtest.  For granularity I think treating an
> entire pytest run as a subtest with just checking the return code should
> be sufficient,
> e.g. `python2.7 -m pytest ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch`.
>
> But the whole test in this case would be this same subtest but once with
> python2.7, python3.5, python3.6 etc.
>
> What do you think of this?

The notmuch build system currently looks for a single version of
python. I'm pretty sure we don't want to require multiple python
versions to build notmuch, although I guess it wouldn't be that hard to
detect whatever versions exist in the environment and run pytest with
each of them. I just need a list of names to look for (or a better way
to find all the pythons installed). Debian has the handy comand
"py3versions --installed", but I suppose that's completely unportable.

Then each one can be checked to see if it finds the pytest module.

It sounds doable to me; it needs a bit more work in configure, but I can
drop the stuff in test-lib.sh

d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: pytest integration for the notmuch test suite

[Floris Bruynooghe]

On Sun, Mar 25 2018, David Bremner wrote:

> Here's one approach. A given pytest "file" can be embedded in a normal
> (for us) test script.  As I write this, it occurs to me you might be
> thinking of embedding unit tests in the bindings source files; that
> would be easy to add, something along the lines of
>
> test_begin_subtest "python bindings embedded unit tests"
> test_expect_success "${NOTMUCH_PYTEST} 
> ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch"

I was trying to construct something where a full pytest run on one
python version was one subtest.  For granularity I think treating an
entire pytest run as a subtest with just checking the return code should
be sufficient,
e.g. `python2.7 -m pytest ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch`.

But the whole test in this case would be this same subtest but once with
python2.7, python3.5, python3.6 etc.

What do you think of this?

Cheers,
Floris
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: pytest integration for the notmuch test suite

[David Bremner]

Tomi Ollila  writes:

> On Sun, Mar 25 2018, David Bremner wrote:
>
>> Here's one approach. A given pytest "file" can be embedded in a normal
>> (for us) test script.  As I write this, it occurs to me you might be
>> thinking of embedding unit tests in the bindings source files; that
>> would be easy to add, something along the lines of
>>
>> test_begin_subtest "python bindings embedded unit tests"
>> test_expect_success "${NOTMUCH_PYTEST} 
>> ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch"
>
> Hmm.
>
> Looks a bit strange to embed the pytest snippets into shell script and then
> execute each of these individiually. The only thing py.test seems to do here 
> is
> "visualizing" assert output. We could just use normal python otherwise, and
> just not (necessarily) drop things into functions.

Yes, I had pretty much the same thought. It's also true that pytest
allows mixing tests with regular definition, if desired (i.e. it can
search for all the functions starting test_ or some other marker).
It's also true this doesn't really cost more at run time than the
current test_python; they both exec the python interpreter.

> If we had pytest, I'd suggest the tests were written and executed
> separately (from one test script) and then results collected somehow
> to the final aggregator.

Sure, that sounds nicer. I just don't want to invest a lot in writing
glue before it's clear what is needed. If start by running the pytest
files the crude way, we can always improve the glue later. That does
argue against doing many embedded snippets, I agree.

d
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: pytest integration for the notmuch test suite

[Tomi Ollila]

On Sun, Mar 25 2018, David Bremner wrote:

> Here's one approach. A given pytest "file" can be embedded in a normal
> (for us) test script.  As I write this, it occurs to me you might be
> thinking of embedding unit tests in the bindings source files; that
> would be easy to add, something along the lines of
>
> test_begin_subtest "python bindings embedded unit tests"
> test_expect_success "${NOTMUCH_PYTEST} 
> ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch"

Hmm.

Looks a bit strange to embed the pytest snippets into shell script and then
execute each of these individiually. The only thing py.test seems to do here is
"visualizing" assert output. We could just use normal python otherwise, and
just not (necessarily) drop things into functions.

If we had pytest, I'd suggest the tests were written and executed
separately (from one test script) and then results collected somehow
to the final aggregator.

(Recently I've been working with py.test-3 (and am not too happy with it,
perhaps it is better when testing python code, we use it for testing c code
with help of ctypes...) so I have some knowledge of how it works...

BTW: in case of pytest. be careful there is no `conftest.py` in any of the
directories starting / !!!, to mess up with your tests >;/ 

> You could also run one source file of tests with
>
> test_begin_subtest "python bindings foo tests"
> test_expect_success "${NOTMUCH_PYTEST} 
> ${NOTMUCH_SRCDIR}/bindings/python/notmuch/test_foo.py"

notmuch bätter... ;/

>
> that would give a less granular result, at the cost of more boilerplate


Tomi
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch