Mark Ramm wrote: > > Have you considered using paste.fixture for the functional tests? > > > I think paste.fixture, or scotch (from Titus Brown) are both good > options for functional tests.
I think scotch is more about recording, and twill more about functional tests. You can do full-stack unit tests reasonably well with paste.fixture, testing just one little chunk of something. Or bigger tests, but without the routines for running around forms that twill has. Generally I've never needed to do those kinds of things except when doing acceptance testing for an application. Functional tests are more manufactured generally, and so it's a lot easier to test the output. Generally paste.fixture is more picky than twill. For instance, if you don't pre-declare that a request should return a non-2xx (or 3xx) response, it will be an error. You don't have to do extra testing at each stage. Generally when I use TestApp (paste.fixture.TestApp), I just instantiate the application manually. So Paste Deploy is mostly separate, I think, at least for framework tests (I usually set up a config file just for unit testing in applications). OTOH, if there's lots of framework setup that has to happen, that makes the testing harder, and Paste Deploy actively discourages framework setup (since it doesn't have any interface for that sort of thing). -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
