[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

STINNER Victor added the comment: This issue was opened 4 years ago and has no activity since 2 years :-/ Even if yes, it would be nice to enhance regrtest and unittest, this issue doesn't propose any concrete plan with a concrete patch. I understand that the current situation is not perfect b

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by Berker Peksag : -- nosy: +berker.peksag ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by Zachary Ware : -- nosy: +zach.ware ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: Ah, but for me the point of running directly under unit test (and unittest discovery) it to be able to use the standard unittest facilities for running a single testcase or individual test. Converting them to skips without making them run if regrtest isn't a

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Ezio Melotti added the comment: Yes, that could be done as well, but even if they are not run by default under unittest, I'd be already happy to see them marked as skipped. If I see that they are skipped I can always switch to regrtest to enable the necessary resource, or just execute the fil

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Ezio Melotti added the comment: > So you are agreeing with my proposal? I will have to see a concrete proposal first. If a resource API is useful enough to be added to unittest, and we can come up with a decent API we can move it there, otherwise it can just stay in regrtest. There's also th

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: My proposal is how to do this without adding anything to unittest. It is about how to implement the skips so that all tests are run when run under unittest, but resource control still happens when the tests run under regrtest. -- ___

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: So you are agreeing with my proposal? And no, I don't think the goal is to get rid of regrtest, it is just to make it as small as practical. Or to put it another way, to add the features of regrtest that are generally useful to unittest. -- ___

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Ezio Melotti added the comment: > I'd rather not have resources outside the local machine be accessed. Fair enough. > If you *also* want a way to skip tests based on resource when running > them outside regrtest, then unittest would have to grow a resource API. This can already be done though

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: No controversy on (1), we should just do that. I don't see a strong reason to change (2). I always run the test suite with -uall, but if I were running a restricted set I'd rather not have resources outside the local machine be accessed. My proposal is a wa

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Ezio Melotti added the comment: There are actually three separate issues here: 1) The resources don't use unittest skip (or at least not always), so while running the tests without regrtests there are no indication that some tests have been skipped. This could be addressed by converting the cu

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: We have previously discussed adding resource-awareness to unittest, but that is a much bigger project (API design, scope considerations, etc etc). In the meantime, what we could do is modify the current resource-skip logic slightly: make it so that tests are

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Ezio Melotti added the comment: > For one thing, I think resources could be implemented in terms of skips While working on #17333 I noticed a related problem. Most of the tests in test_imaplib are skipped if the 'network' resource is not specified. The test contains the following lines to en

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: > Extending regrtest to support unittest test discovery directly is also a > worthwhile specific proposal. Updating the tests to support discovery in all cases is discussed in (meta) issue 16748. There are also many individual issues in the tracker (one per

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Chris Jerdonek added the comment: One important piece is that regrtest currently has no tests (e.g. there is no test_regrtest.py), so changing it must be done more carefully. How do people feel about new (or newly modified) regrtest classes and functions going into a different fully-tested mo

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by Chris Jerdonek : -- nosy: +cjerdonek ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyt

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Éric Araujo added the comment: For one thing, I think resources could be implemented in terms of skips, or even included into stock unittest. -- nosy: +eric.araujo ___ Python tracker _

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: I also would put increasing test coverage at a higher priority, but this sort of refactoring can be a good step in the development path of new contributors, and doing it does decrease the future maintenance burden. -- ___

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: Wouldn't the time be better spent factoring the test suite or improving coverage? I'm not sure how simply rearranging the tests makes us better-off. -- nosy: +rhettinger ___ Python tracker

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by Ezio Melotti : -- keywords: +gsoc nosy: +ezio.melotti ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Brett Cannon added the comment: Yes, I somewhat view this as an index issue. I don't expect a wholesale move but a more step-by-step move. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by R. David Murray : -- Removed message: http://bugs.python.org/msg126780 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: I think we have already been moving in this direction for quite some time. Past policy is to only change things when we are working on that area of code anyway. If someone wants to make some specific proposals to simplify regrtest by doing a wholesale move

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

R. David Murray added the comment: I think we have already been moving in this director for quite some time. Past policy is to only change things when we are working on that area of code anyway. If someone wants to make some specific proposals to simplify regrtest by doing a wholesale move

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

Changes by Sandro Tosi : -- nosy: +sandro.tosi ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pyth

[issue10967] move regrtest over to using more unittest infrastructure

New submission from Brett Cannon : test.regrtest is rather old and has not been updated to take advantage of all the latest features in unittest (e.g., test discovery). It might be a rather large undertaking with various bits requiring some changes (e.g., getting away from raising exceptions f