Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-13 16:20 -0400:
> ...
>Dieter Maurer wrote:
>> Tres Seaver wrote at 2009-3-12 14:25 -0400:
>>> ...
>>> Sorry, I meant "mandatory tests which load ZCML."  I'm actually against
>>> ever loading ZCML in tests at all.
>> If you ship ZCML, you should test it, no?
>Not necessarily:  in fact, if testing it means that users of my package
>have to accept a big dogpile of dependencies that they otherwise
>wouldn't need to, then no.

Your and my quality principles diverge:
  If I release a package, then its tests have the verify that
  the package contents work correctly.

  This implies: the tests should cover everything the package delivers
  including delivered ZCML files and optional features.
  The tests are my tool (as developper of the package) to help me
  find and fix errors before the release.

  I am completely uninterested to facilitate testing of reduced or
  otherwise special use of my packages. If the full tests pass then a reduced
  use should work as well (provided the integrator did everything right).
  If the user is interested to verify for his own that the tests pass,
  I expect of him to test the full functionality -- or not use
  the package at all.

To stress it: the above just describes test requirements -- not "install"
requirements. I am ready to support loose install requirements
(and use "extras" to support optional features) but I am not
ready to invest in loose test requirements.

Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to