On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 08:32:28AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a reason to advocate zope.testing over the others? Would it
> > perhaps make more sense to use one of the more widely used tools instead
> > of maintaing our own testing toolkit?
> I'd also like for us to adopt one of the more widely used test
> runners, but as mentioned in replies, there are some features in
> zope.testing that we depend on.  If someone were adequately motivated
> and had sufficient time (neither of which I have, so I suspect no one
> else does either), it would be interesting to attempt to endue another
> test runner with the features we need (layers, etc.).

I like our test runner and spent time refactoring it so we can actually start
making changes again. I looked at other test runners (nose, py.test) and
didn't find anything compelling (to me) that we didn't already have.


Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development
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