Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
On Nov 15, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: ... Chris is not advocating switching away from zc.buildout for the *development* of the packages; he is arguing that we can't force people who *use* the packages to stop using the facilities supplied setuptools. Agreed, If we want people outside the rather small group of core Zope developers to *use* our software, we are going to need to accomodate their expectations about how Python pacakges work. At a miniumum, any package which we release to the Cheeseshop should be testable and installable using the standard tool used by nearly everyone: setuptools. That means we need to work harder at a coule of things: - Making sure the install-time dependencies in setup.py are accurate, minimal, and themselves installable. Yup - Making sure that the tests can psss for somebody who is not a core Zope developer, (and therefore who doesn't know about zc.buildout, or want to). E.g.: $ /path/to/python setup.py develop $ /path/to/python setup.py test Gr. I find setup.py test to be really annoying as it requires meta data that is available only to that command. If there are dependencies which are needed to run the tests but not merely to install the package, there should be a way to spell that. Agreed. I'll note that there is a school of thought that I proposed but am somewhat ambivalent about that anything required by tests should also be required by install. This is in accordance with fly what you test, test what you fly. To the degree that we do this, then there is no need for tests_require. In setuptools, that is what 'tests_require' is for; buildout doesn't (yet) have such a spelling (I think). Ideally, buildout (really the testrunner recipe) should be able to honor tests_require, but setuptools doesn't make this information available to any other packages. :( (big frowny) Also, I believe that more is required to get setup.py test to work. I'm unsure what the details are. When we do this, we tend to use a test extra. I suggest that when we use a test extra, we also put the value in tests_require. I will find this so distasteful that it will help me stick to the strategy of just putting these dependencies in install_requires. :) In order to succeed here, we are going to have to quit releasing packages without more careful thought, testing, etc. +1 This should not be interpreted as criticism of the heroic and well- meaning efforts to date. Despite that inevitable mistakes that were made, I'm very appreciative of the efforts a few individual people made to make the transition to eggs possible. I also apologize for not providing more oversight. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
On Nov 15, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: ... Gr. I find setup.py test to be really annoying as it requires meta data that is available only to that command. Not after running 'egg_info', or any other setuptools-aware command; the tests_require dependencies then become introspectable. E.g.: $ svn co $ZSVN/zope.tal/trunk zope.tal-trunk $ cd zope.tal-trunk $ /path/to/setuptools-aware/python setup.py egg_info $ cat src/zope.tal-egg-info/requires.txt setuptools zope.i18nmessageid zope.interface [test] zope.testing None of these is tests_require. The above lists the contents of install_requires and the test extra. zope.tal is odd because it lists the same values in tests_require and install requires. Try putting something else in tests_require and see if you see it show up. I know that the contents of tests_require isn't saved because I *tried* to get buildout to use it and asked about it on the distutils sig: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2007-January/ 007083.html Of course, something could have changed since then, but I doubt it. ... Ideally, buildout (really the testrunner recipe) should be able to honor tests_require, but setuptools doesn't make this information available to any other packages. :( (big frowny) Also, I believe that more is required to get setup.py test to work. I'm unsure what the details are. See above. If buildout can trigger creation of the egg-info directory, all should be well. In fact, that directory will already be present in any source distribution built with setuptools. Again, I believe you are mistaken. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
On Nov 15, 2007 9:35 AM, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Making sure that the tests can psss for somebody who is not a core Zope developer, (and therefore who doesn't know about zc.buildout, or want to). E.g.: $ /path/to/python setup.py develop $ /path/to/python setup.py test How many people actually use setup.py test for a package they aren't developing? Generally, when I download a package, I don't expect to know a priori how to run the tests. Given the number of testing frameworks and tools commonly used for Python these days (nose, trial, py.test, etc.), I'm certainly not going to assume that the setuptools solution was chosen. Given that both setuptools and bare distutils use setup.py as the interface to build install operations, I'm not going to assume that a package uses setuptools. I think of setuptools as a tool for a package's developer to use in setup.py, which may color my thinking in odd ways. Generally, though, I don't know setuptools is being used unless I actually look inside setup.py. I'm not suggesting that setup.py test is a bad thing, just that I wouldn't assume it. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr.fdrake at gmail.com Chaos is the score upon which reality is written. --Henry Miller ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
On Nov 15, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Dieter Maurer wrote: Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-11-15 10:28 -0500: ... Agreed. I'll note that there is a school of thought that I proposed but am somewhat ambivalent about that anything required by tests should also be required by install. This is in accordance with fly what you test, test what you fly. To the degree that we do this, then there is no need for tests_require. AdvancedQuery is a counter example to that. AdvancedQuery is willing to be used with almost all indexes. Thus, install_requires should not require any special indexes. But, AdvancedQuery can better work with Managable Indexes and, then, provides more features. Therefore, its test suite uses Managable Index and examines the more freatures. ALso, often the set of dependencies required by the tests are larger than the set of dependencies required for the distribution to be useful at installation time. E.g. in one of my distributions, I ship a set of ZCML declaration definitions, and my tests need to test it, and thus the tests need some ZCML package support to run. But the distribution doesn't actually itself need the same ZCML support packages to run, it just needs it to test that, were someone to use the ZCML declaration stuff I've created, it would work. - C ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
Jim Fulton wrote at 2007-11-15 10:28 -0500: ... Agreed. I'll note that there is a school of thought that I proposed but am somewhat ambivalent about that anything required by tests should also be required by install. This is in accordance with fly what you test, test what you fly. To the degree that we do this, then there is no need for tests_require. AdvancedQuery is a counter example to that. AdvancedQuery is willing to be used with almost all indexes. Thus, install_requires should not require any special indexes. But, AdvancedQuery can better work with Managable Indexes and, then, provides more features. Therefore, its test suite uses Managable Index and examines the more freatures. -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
Previously Fred Drake wrote: On Nov 15, 2007 9:35 AM, Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Making sure that the tests can psss for somebody who is not a core Zope developer, (and therefore who doesn't know about zc.buildout, or want to). E.g.: $ /path/to/python setup.py develop $ /path/to/python setup.py test How many people actually use setup.py test for a package they aren't developing? Generally, when I download a package, I don't expect to know a priori how to run the tests. Given the number of testing frameworks and tools commonly used for Python these days (nose, trial, py.test, etc.), I'm certainly not going to assume that the setuptools solution was chosen. nose hooks perfectly in setup.py test. In fact I generally run nose that way. It should be possible to hook the zope testrunner into the setup.py test_suite hook as well. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Tres Seaver wrote:
...
Gr. I find setup.py test to be really annoying as it requires
meta data that is available only to that command.
Not after running 'egg_info', or any other setuptools-aware command;
the tests_require dependencies then become introspectable. E.g.:
$ svn co $ZSVN/zope.tal/trunk zope.tal-trunk
$ cd zope.tal-trunk
$ /path/to/setuptools-aware/python setup.py egg_info
$ cat src/zope.tal-egg-info/requires.txt
setuptools
zope.i18nmessageid
zope.interface
[test]
zope.testing
None of these is tests_require. The above lists the contents of
install_requires and the test extra. zope.tal is odd because it
lists the same values in tests_require and install requires. Try
putting something else in tests_require and see if you see it show up.
I know that the contents of tests_require isn't saved because I
*tried* to get buildout to use it and asked about it on the distutils
sig:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2007-January/007083.html
Of course, something could have changed since then, but I doubt it.
Nope.
Ideally, buildout (really the testrunner recipe) should be able to
honor tests_require, but setuptools doesn't make this information
available to any other packages. :( (big frowny) Also, I believe
that more is required to get setup.py test to work. I'm unsure
what the details are.
See above. If buildout can trigger creation of the egg-info
directory,
all should be well. In fact, that directory will already be
present in
any source distribution built with setuptools.
Again, I believe you are mistaken.
You are correct: I was misled by the presence of the section for the
'tests' extra. Attached find a patch against the setuptools-0.6 branch
which addes a 'tests_require.txt' file entry point. I will propose that
the patch be included over on the distutils list.
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHPHR++gerLs4ltQ4RAnVTAKC7KSP2UTNjQt8aCVwDeBW80Zu0UgCfT+/T
DBdr4PuHBOBmBHP4Gte2R8U=
=2M92
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Index: setuptools/command/egg_info.py
===
--- setuptools/command/egg_info.py (revision 58984)
+++ setuptools/command/egg_info.py (working copy)
@@ -398,6 +398,11 @@
data.append('\n\n[%s]\n%s' % (extra, '\n'.join(yield_lines(reqs
cmd.write_or_delete_file(requirements, filename, ''.join(data))
+def write_test_requirements(cmd, basename, filename):
+dist = cmd.distribution
+data = ['\n'.join(yield_lines(dist.tests_require or ()))]
+cmd.write_or_delete_file(test_requirements, filename, ''.join(data))
+
def write_toplevel_names(cmd, basename, filename):
pkgs = dict.fromkeys(
[k.split('.',1)[0]
Index: setup.py
===
--- setup.py (revision 58984)
+++ setup.py (working copy)
@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
egg_info.writers: [
PKG-INFO = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_pkg_info,
requires.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_requirements,
+tests_require.txt =
+ setuptools.command.egg_info:write_test_requirements,
entry_points.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_entries,
eager_resources.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:overwrite_arg,
namespace_packages.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:overwrite_arg,
Index: setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt
===
--- setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt (revision 58984)
+++ setuptools.egg-info/entry_points.txt (working copy)
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
saveopts = setuptools.command.saveopts:saveopts
egg_info = setuptools.command.egg_info:egg_info
register = setuptools.command.register:register
+upload = setuptools.command.upload:upload
install_egg_info = setuptools.command.install_egg_info:install_egg_info
alias = setuptools.command.alias:alias
easy_install = setuptools.command.easy_install:easy_install
@@ -22,6 +23,7 @@
[egg_info.writers]
dependency_links.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:overwrite_arg
requires.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_requirements
+tests_require.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_test_requirements
PKG-INFO = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_pkg_info
eager_resources.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:overwrite_arg
top_level.txt = setuptools.command.egg_info:write_toplevel_names
@@ -31,7 +33,7 @@
[console_scripts]
easy_install = setuptools.command.easy_install:main
-easy_install-2.5 =
Re: [Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jim Fulton wrote: On Nov 15, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Tres Seaver wrote: ... Chris is not advocating switching away from zc.buildout for the *development* of the packages; he is arguing that we can't force people who *use* the packages to stop using the facilities supplied setuptools. Agreed, If we want people outside the rather small group of core Zope developers to *use* our software, we are going to need to accomodate their expectations about how Python pacakges work. At a miniumum, any package which we release to the Cheeseshop should be testable and installable using the standard tool used by nearly everyone: setuptools. That means we need to work harder at a coule of things: - Making sure the install-time dependencies in setup.py are accurate, minimal, and themselves installable. Yup - Making sure that the tests can psss for somebody who is not a core Zope developer, (and therefore who doesn't know about zc.buildout, or want to). E.g.: $ /path/to/python setup.py develop $ /path/to/python setup.py test Gr. I find setup.py test to be really annoying as it requires meta data that is available only to that command. Not after running 'egg_info', or any other setuptools-aware command; the tests_require dependencies then become introspectable. E.g.: $ svn co $ZSVN/zope.tal/trunk zope.tal-trunk $ cd zope.tal-trunk $ /path/to/setuptools-aware/python setup.py egg_info $ cat src/zope.tal-egg-info/requires.txt setuptools zope.i18nmessageid zope.interface [test] zope.testing If there are dependencies which are needed to run the tests but not merely to install the package, there should be a way to spell that. Agreed. I'll note that there is a school of thought that I proposed but am somewhat ambivalent about that anything required by tests should also be required by install. This is in accordance with fly what you test, test what you fly. To the degree that we do this, then there is no need for tests_require. There are a bunch of packages out there which contain ZCML, and try to test the loadability of it. Those tests end up creating a huge furball of dependencies which are artificial: the package itself doesn't need to process ZCML, and any application which wants to conume the ZCML provided by the package is going to have those dependencies satisfied anyway. In setuptools, that is what 'tests_require' is for; buildout doesn't (yet) have such a spelling (I think). Ideally, buildout (really the testrunner recipe) should be able to honor tests_require, but setuptools doesn't make this information available to any other packages. :( (big frowny) Also, I believe that more is required to get setup.py test to work. I'm unsure what the details are. See above. If buildout can trigger creation of the egg-info directory, all should be well. In fact, that directory will already be present in any source distribution built with setuptools. When we do this, we tend to use a test extra. I suggest that when we use a test extra, we also put the value in tests_require. I will find this so distasteful that it will help me stick to the strategy of just putting these dependencies in install_requires. :) In order to succeed here, we are going to have to quit releasing packages without more careful thought, testing, etc. +1 This should not be interpreted as criticism of the heroic and well- meaning efforts to date. Despite that inevitable mistakes that were made, I'm very appreciative of the efforts a few individual people made to make the transition to eggs possible. I also apologize for not providing more oversight. Agreed completely (on the heroic part). Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHPGtF+gerLs4ltQ4RAiflAKCjtH9ZutX/rL3v4w3qC6antxWUMQCfWgmU AFNKLCpInKK9xNB3U2Aliws= =ooWa -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tres Seaver wrote: You are correct: I was misled by the presence of the section for the 'tests' extra. Attached find a patch against the setuptools-0.6 branch which addes a 'tests_require.txt' file entry point. I will propose that the patch be included over on the distutils list. I realized (and Phillip Eby reminded me) that setuptools plugins can be distributed separately: I just released 'eggtestinfo' to the cheeseshop: when the plugin is installed, generated '.egg-info' directories will contain a 'test_info.txt' file, which documents both the 'test_suite' and the 'tests_require' from 'setup.py'. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHPH8G+gerLs4ltQ4RAgzTAJsFMY3I+TAkb6ZEN8x28Dow9VidLQCgzVM7 tBQKIULZo88KrA9l1wGldgw= =So7f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Re: buildout tests_require analogue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Baiju M wrote: Chris McDonough wrote: Is there an equivalent for tests_require in buildout.cfg/zc.recipe.testrunner? The reason I ask is this... currently the zope.18n distribution has an install_requires that looks something like this: install_requires=[ 'setuptools', 'pytz', 'zope.i18nmessageid', 'zope.component [zcml]', 'zope.configuration', ] That's actually a no-good pack of lies, though. ;-) I'd like to change setup.py to something like this: test_suite = __main__.alltests, # to support setup.py test tests_require=[ 'zope.testing', 'pytz', 'zope.component [zcml]', 'zope.configuration', ], install_requires=[ 'setuptools', 'pytz', 'zope.i18nmessageid', 'zope.component', # *we* do not require zope.configuration at all. Our tests # do (for silly reasons) and the framework which uses our zcml # does. ], But I want buildout tests to continue to work. -1 for using different methods for running tests. Testing packages should be done in same way by all developers. If one person run tests in one way and another one in another way is not good. IMO, we should have a policy to use Buildout for development of Zope packages. Chris is not advocating switching away from zc.buildout for the *development* of the packages; he is arguing that we can't force people who *use* the packages to stop using the facilities supplied setuptools. If we want people outside the rather small group of core Zope developers to *use* our software, we are going to need to accomodate their expectations about how Python pacakges work. At a miniumum, any package which we release to the Cheeseshop should be testable and installable using the standard tool used by nearly everyone: setuptools. That means we need to work harder at a coule of things: - Making sure the install-time dependencies in setup.py are accurate, minimal, and themselves installable. $ wget http://download.zope.org/zope.tal-3.4.0.tar.gz $ tar xzf zope.tal-3.4.0.tar.gz $ cd zope.tal-3.4.0 $ /path/to/python setup.py install If that fails for *any* package listed on the cheeseshop, then we lose: people won't use it, and they won't bother looking at other packages we release, either. - Making sure that the tests can psss for somebody who is not a core Zope developer, (and therefore who doesn't know about zc.buildout, or want to). E.g.: $ /path/to/python setup.py develop $ /path/to/python setup.py test If there are dependencies which are needed to run the tests but not merely to install the package, there should be a way to spell that. In setuptools, that is what 'tests_require' is for; buildout doesn't (yet) have such a spelling (I think). In order to succeed here, we are going to have to quit releasing packages without more careful thought, testing, etc. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHPFkm+gerLs4ltQ4RAtLpAJsEag5KlwI/upMn2lh8uSCneAT08QCdFk2/ VqlhGdbHT0jV9EMPjoaOZ+w= =3g3v -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
