Am Freitag, den 02.11.2007, 10:53 -0400 schrieb Stephan Richter:
> I only know of the general problem and not the specific one. Let's say you 
> have a package A with extras AE1 and AE2. Then you really have to write tests 
> for three installation cases: A, A with AE1, A with AE2. Currently we do not 
> have technology doing this. It gets even worse when you bring another package 
> into play. Let's say you have package B with extras BE1 and BE2 that depends 
> on package A. You now have to test (B, A), (B, A with AE1), (B, A with AE2), 
> (B with BE1, A), ... So the test scenarios multiply. It is just unmanageable. 
> To put the final nail in the coffin, extras are not even fully supported by 
> setuptools.

I do understand the `test extra` is a deviation from `test what you fly,
fly what you test`. Which means that the `anti-extras` argument would
require us to provide one package with the `pure tests` and put
integration tests into another package, carefully selecting which
combinations we want that demonstrate support for interoperability.

> Overall I am in favor in switching to 'test_require'.

Me too, although I see the point as stated above which is a counter
argument. I'm somewhat indecisive right now, but I think that using
test_require is better for the current situation than staying with the
bad dependency mixture. Maybe some `test-only` integration packages
would be nice, but I don't see anybody do the work.


gocept gmbh & co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to