On 24 Feb 2006, at 16:38, Tres Seaver wrote:
So, I take it that you are a second voter in favor of not
requiring all tests
to be doctests.
Count me as another. Doctests are fine for many cases, but they suck
for doing "coverage" / "edge case" testing, which are the "valuable"
unit tests for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stephan Richter wrote:
> 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
>>respo
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
> somewha
On 2/23/06, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Let's do this somewhere
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, coo
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()
:)
--
Martijn Pieters
___
Zope mai
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
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).
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 (P
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.
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 any
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 intern
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
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, which
On 2/23/06, Gary Poster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You effectively can't step through all the tests (with a single
> pdb). You can step through a single line in the test well. While it
> sounds limiting, that has proved quite sufficient for me in
> practice. YMMV, of course.
Sigh. doctests re
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 why it does not work. Ev
On 2/23/06, Stephan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you want to use the debugger?
I'd like to be able to step through the tests.
> I run the tests, if the set_trace()
> occurs it throws me to the prompt and all is fine. I can use the debugger as
> usual.
When I do this, I get a promp
On Thursday 23 February 2006 06:53, Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Ah, not in Zope 2.9 it seems. Is this expected, or an I doing something
> wrong? I'm running the Five tests with bin/zopectl test --dir Products/Five
> as usual, and having a set_trace() in the doctests behaves exactly as with
> the old t
17 matches
Mail list logo
