Christian Theune wrote at 2009-3-23 14:44 +0100:
...
I usually just run the tests that I'm interested (-s or -t or a
combination) in during those times. I never had to go in and comment out
a test_suite function.
I had when I had run the ZODB test suite. Some tests deterministically
had hang --
Christian Theune wrote:
Wichert.
Be aware of nose issue #102:
http://code.google.com/p/python-nose/issues/detail?id=102
Is there a particular reason to keep using the test_suite convention?
Personally I much prefer nose's habit of automatically picking up
tests.
I think there is not.
On 3/23/09 12:57 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Wichert.
Be aware of nose issue #102:
http://code.google.com/p/python-nose/issues/detail?id=102
Is there a particular reason to keep using the test_suite convention?
Personally I much prefer nose's habit of automatically
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:20 +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
On 3/23/09 12:57 PM, Chris Withers wrote:
Christian Theune wrote:
Wichert.
Be aware of nose issue #102:
http://code.google.com/p/python-nose/issues/detail?id=102
Is there a particular reason to keep using the test_suite
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 21:36 +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test,
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that apparently there is no way for us to
dig up this information in the way our test runner needs, unlike extras
requires.
Regards,
Martijn
___
Hi there,
Thanks Gary for sketching our the zc.async usecase. Note that zc.async
isn't in the Zope Framework at this point in time so it wouldn't be
directly affected by this policy, but it's still a useful usecase of course.
We seem to have a split community here...
I care about this as it
On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
Thanks Gary for sketching our the zc.async usecase. Note that zc.async
isn't in the Zope Framework at this point in time so it wouldn't be
directly affected by this policy, but it's still a useful usecase of
course.
Right,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that apparently there is no way for us to
dig up this information in the way our test runner needs, unlike extras
2009/3/6 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that apparently there is no way for us to
dig up this information in the
On Mar 6, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/6 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that apparently there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Korostelev wrote:
2009/3/6 Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hey,
Laurence Rowe wrote:
[snip]
It seems there is a 'tests_require'
One reason that isn't used is that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/eggtestinfo)
I skimmed the docs, but they were written generically, so I couldn't
confirm: Tres, is this the thing that lets you run ``setup.py test``
against zope.testing, if you configure it
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each can have a separate list of dependencies. Such a virtual package
that
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each can have a separate list of dependencies. Such a virtual
2009/3/5 Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com:
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each can have a separate
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
* we shouldn't create any new extra dependencies from now on.
+1
* we should investigate ways to remove the need for 'extra' dependencies.
+1
I therefore think zope.app.testing is one package we should be looking
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen faas...@startifact.com wrote:
[snip proposal to stop using extras]
Opinions?
+1
--
Benji York
Senior Software Engineer
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
Previously Martijn Faassen wrote:
I therefore think zope.app.testing is one package we should be looking
to get rid of eventually by splitting it up among a lot of 'testing'
modules in individual packages. This way we won't have zope.app.testing
sitting at an edge against our whole
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
using nose.
Wichert.
Be aware of nose issue #102:
Previously Sidnei da Silva wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Wichert Akkerman wich...@wiggy.net wrote:
I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
using nose.
Wichert.
Be aware of
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each can have a separate
Hi there,
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
[snip]
I would like to see a move away from zope testing frameworks to a more
standard testing infrastructure: setup.py test, possibly combined with
using nose.
This is another discussion that has little to do with testing
dependencies such as
Dan Korostelev wrote at 2009-3-5 22:14 +0300:
...
-0.75 for removing functionality extras. I still don't get how extras
are different from additional packages.
I agree with Dan -- and add -1.
The extras are equivalent to almost identical additional packages.
If this makes reasoning more
Gary Poster wrote:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of virtual packages that
each
2009/3/5 Gary Poster gary.pos...@gmail.com:
On Mar 5, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
I know opinions are divergent about 'extra' dependencies in setup.py.
These ar dependencies that effectively make a single project with a
single dependency structure into a number of
On Mar 5, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Laurence Rowe wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
I disagree with the blanket statement.
I do lean towards not having the extras for the test package only.
I'm fine with the policy If you want zope.testing for your tests,
then keep it as a dependency for the package.
But
27 matches
Mail list logo
