Am 03.11.2011 um 05:12 schrieb Tres Seaver:
[...]
[8]FAILED winbot / z3c.form_py_265_32
https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052080.html
Same as yesterday (and the day before, and the day before). Is nobody
maintaining this package?
Roger worked on this package
Hi All,
I'm experimenting with using nose as an alternative to zope.testrunner
so I can take advantage of the junit and cobertura compatible xml output
offered.
However, it appears that doctest counting is different between the two:
$ bin/test -m testfixtures.tests.test_docs
Running
Am 03.11.2011 um 05:12 schrieb Tres Seaver:
[...]
[7]FAILED ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit
https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052087.html
- - [7] are all the unexpected Data.fs bug in
zope/testing/setupstack.txt. Can somebody who cares about that module
/
Am 03.11.2011 um 08:25 schrieb Chris Withers:
Hi All,
I'm experimenting with using nose as an alternative to zope.testrunner
so I can take advantage of the junit and cobertura compatible xml output
offered.
[...]
I'm paranoid that nose might not be running some tests that
Hi Michael,
On 03/11/2011 09:12, Michael Howitz wrote:
Run both test runners with the option -vv to see which tests are run.
(I did this for your code and the list of tests seems to be equal.)
Cool, I'd done this already, but it's good to have someone else verify
this :-)
Though this is no
On 2011-11-03, at 0025, Chris Withers wrote:
I'm experimenting with using nose as an alternative to zope.testrunner
so I can take advantage of the junit and cobertura compatible xml output
offered.
Using http://pypi.python.org/pypi/collective.xmltestreport might be easier? Not
sure if it
On 03/11/2011 10:54, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 2011-11-03, at 0025, Chris Withers wrote:
I'm experimenting with using nose as an alternative to zope.testrunner
so I can take advantage of the junit and cobertura compatible xml output
offered.
Using
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 03/11/2011 09:12, Michael Howitz wrote:
Run both test runners with the option -vv to see which tests are run.
(I did this for your code and the list of tests seems to be equal.)
It would be interesting
On 03/11/2011 11:05, Jim Fulton wrote:
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Chris Withersch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 03/11/2011 09:12, Michael Howitz wrote:
Run both test runners with the option -vv to see which tests are run.
(I did this for your code and the list of tests
On 11/03/2011 11:54 AM, Matthew Wilkes wrote:
On 2011-11-03, at 0025, Chris Withers wrote:
I'm experimenting with using nose as an alternative to zope.testrunner
so I can take advantage of the junit and cobertura compatible xml output
offered.
Using
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk wrote:
The code uses Manuel, under both nose and zope.testrunner:
Manuel will report the same test count under both nose and
zope.testrunner but I don't know if nose respects the count provided.
You could put a breakpoint in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/2011 04:57 AM, Michael Howitz wrote:
Am 03.11.2011 um 05:12 schrieb Tres Seaver: [...]
[7]FAILED ZTK 1.1dev / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit
https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-November/052087.html
- - [7] are all the
This is the summary for test reports received on the
zope-tests list between 2011-11-02 00:00:00 UTC and 2011-11-03 00:00:00 UTC:
See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds.
An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our
buildbot documentation:
13 matches
Mail list logo
