On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:30:22PM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> >Digression: syntax highlighting the diffs helps immensely.
> >Check out
> >http://svn.zope.org/zope.testing/branches/colorized-output/
>
> I'm very much looking forward to that branch being merged to the trunk.
Marius Gedminas wrote:
- Functional tests: these are .txt files that use zope.testbrowser and
are the hardest to debug. There ought to be a better way to make
assertions about HTML output than using ELLIPSIS and then pulling
your hair out looking at huge and incomprehensible diffs.
Previously Marius Gedminas wrote:
> - Unit tests: there are many of those, they're independent (thus a
> single .txt for a collection of tests is a Bad Idea), they're short
> (so understanding and debugging is easy) and expressive. I put
> those into .py files full with functions tha
On Saturday 14 July 2007 04:05, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Absolutely! Â Trying to reach two unrelated goals (comprehensive tests +
> human-friendly documentation) with one file is just too hard, if not
> impossible.
While it cannot be done in one file, I think it can be done in one style of
writing
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 11:24:36AM +0300, Marius Gedminas wrote:
> Digression: syntax highlighting the diffs helps immensely.
> Check out http://svn.zope.org/zope.testing/branches/colorized-output/
A picture is better than five hundred lines of code:
http://mg.pov.lt/blog/europytho
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:09:30PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Tres Seaver wrote:
> > Stephan Richter wrote:
> > > I think in the long term it will be most beneficial, if we convert all
> > > tests
> > > to doctests; then a reasonable on-line documentation is not that hard to
> >
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 02:03:04PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Of course, I'm a big fan of doctest. Not all tests are documentation
> though, even if they are written as doctest. I'm happy with what
> we've done. We're making good incremental progress. I think though
> that many of our doct
