On 2/24/06, Martijn Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/23/06, Lennart Regebro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention, doctests are not debuggable from WingIDE. ;-)
In 2.1 you can; the following is the equivalent of pdb.set_trace():
wingdbstub.debugger.Break()
:)
Oh, cool. I need to
On Thursday 23 February 2006 17:18, Chris McDonough wrote:
On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring
all tests
to be doctests.
If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be
somewhat looser
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 23 February 2006 08:13, Lennart Regebro wrote:
As you see, I can't even step into that next line. And even if I
could, the necessity of having to step through the doctestrunning
would be a major pain in the ass.
Ok, I have never needed this. And I can see
On Feb 23, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Benji York wrote:
[...]
if 1:
... import pdb;pdb.set_trace()
... a = 1
... b = 2
... c = a + b
Oh yeah. I've had to do stuff like that too. :-)
___
Zope3-users mailing list
Zope3-users@zope.org
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for documentation,
but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of doctests when I'm
testing without any pretense towards writing documentation. If you
test internals of a class in a doctest, the doctest body gets pretty
cluttered,
Chris McDonough wrote:
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for documentation,
but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of doctests when I'm
testing without any pretense towards writing documentation. If you
test internals of a class in a doctest, the doctest body gets
On 2/23/06, Chris McDonough [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for documentation,
Oh, absolutely.
but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of doctests when I'm
testing without any pretense towards writing documentation.
Exactly my sentiments.
On Feb 23, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Benji York wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote:
I dunno about sucking because they are quite good for
documentation, but I tend to write plain-old unittests instead of
doctests when I'm testing without any pretense towards writing
documentation. If you test
Chris McDonough wrote:
On Feb 23, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Benji York wrote:
If you /were/ talking about stand-alone doctests, then I have no idea
what you're talking about. :)
It's just opinion, but for example, I don't think zope/wfmc/xpdl.txt
reads much better as a doctest than it would as a
On Feb 23, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Benji York wrote:
But it's of course a judgment call.
Perhaps this is just one of those to-each-his-own things. shrug
My own are doctests. ;)
Sure. I actually really appreciate reading good doctests, they help
a lot, and they beat not having any docs at all
On Thursday 23 February 2006 13:37, Lennart Regebro wrote:
Not to mention, doctests are not debuggable from WingIDE.
Maybe we should have a WingIDE sprint in Boston at some point. This would be a
good topic.
Regards,
Stephan
--
Stephan Richter
CBU Physics Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics
On Thursday 23 February 2006 14:16, Chris McDonough wrote:
(e.g. high-
level overview of purpose, how to install it, what other packages it
depends upon, which versions of Python/Zope it works with, who is
responsible for maintaining the package, where to report bugs, and so
on). I
On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not requiring
all tests
to be doctests.
If the ZSCP thing takes off, I think test/doc req'ts should be
somewhat looser than mandating a particular test/doc framework
(something along
13 matches
Mail list logo