On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:32:28AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there a reason to advocate zope.testing over the others? Would it
perhaps
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:32:28AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a reason to advocate zope.testing over the others? Would it
perhaps make more sense to use one of the more widely used tools instead
of maintaing
Hi,
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python level.
it is not really a problem when working with a buildout-centric
approach (thanks to zc.recipe.testrunner),
but how can zope.testing be used with plain Python package
Previously Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python level.
it is not really a problem when working with a buildout-centric
approach (thanks to zc.recipe.testrunner),
but how can zope.testing be
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python level.
it is not really a problem when working with a buildout-centric
Tarek Ziadé wrote:
Hi,
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python level.
it is not really a problem when working with a buildout-centric
approach (thanks to zc.recipe.testrunner),
but how can zope.testing be used with
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python
Phillip:
I suppose having it called 'test' (which is our convention) is a bit
arrogant. But calling it 'zope.testrunner' creates the allusion that the
package is called zope.testrunner as well. How about 'run-zope.testing' or
something along those lines?
Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a reason to advocate zope.testing over the others? Would it
perhaps make more sense to use one of the more widely used tools instead
of maintaing our own testing toolkit?
I'd also like for us to adopt one of
Hi,
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 02:19:17PM +0200, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:43:05PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I
On May 15, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
I am comparing nose, py.test and zope.testing, and I realized
zope.testing does not install a console script at
Python level.
That's a bug.
If nothing exists, I would like to suggest adding a setuptools console
entry point in zope.testing
11 matches
Mail list logo
