In article roy-f2685a.08422113072...@news.panix.com,
Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
Lastly, nose, by default, doesn't say much. When things go wrong and
you have no clue what's happening, --verbose and --debug are your
friends.
I found another example of nose not saying much, and this
Does nose run all of its collected tests in a single process?
I've got a test which monkey-patches an imported module. Will all of the other
tests collected in the same run of nosetests see the patch?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 07/15/2012 08:58 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
What motivated you to migrate from unittest to nose?
Mostly I was just looking for a better way to run our existing tests.
We've got a bunch of tests written in standard unittest, but no good way
to start at the top of the tree and run them all with
In article mailman.2149.1342375358.4697.python-l...@python.org,
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
After years of using unittest, what would you say are the pros and
cons of nose?
BTW, although I'm currently using nose just as a unittest aggregator, I
can see some nice advantages to native nose
Philipp Hagemeister wrote:
Currently, $ python -m unittest does nothing useful (afaik). Would it
break anything to look in . , ./test, ./tests for any files matching
test_* , and execute those?
http://docs.python.org/library/unittest#test-discovery
--
On 07/16/2012 01:47 PM, Peter Otten wrote:
http://docs.python.org/library/unittest#test-discovery
That's precisely it. Can we improve the discoverability of the discover
option, for example by making it the default action, or including a
message use discover to find test files automatically if
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
In article mailman.2149.1342375358.4697.python-l...@python.org,
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
After years of using unittest, what would you say are the pros and
cons of nose?
BTW, although I'm currently using nose just as a unittest aggregator
Be aware that
On 07/16/2012 02:37 PM, Philipp Hagemeister wrote:
Can we improve the discoverability of the discover
option, for example by making it the default action, or including a
message use discover to find test files automatically if there are no
arguments?
Oops, already implemented as of Python 3.2.
Hi Roy,
I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly
(perhaps stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose.
I finally decided to take a serious look at nose.
Thanks for sharing your nose experience.
What motivated you to migrate from unittest to nose?
After years
In article mailman.2149.1342375358.4697.python-l...@python.org,
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
Hi Roy,
I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly
(perhaps stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose.
I finally decided to take a serious look at nose.
Thanks
I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly (perhaps
stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose. I finally
decided to take a serious look at nose. There were a few pain points I
had to work through to get our existing collection of tests to run under
nose. I
11 matches
Mail list logo
