Dieter Maurer wrote: > 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. >
As a frequent recipient of Tres' wrath when things go untested, I can vouch that Tres is definitely interested in comprehensive test coverage. ;-) I think the point is that some ZCML he ships might be "example" ZCML which he has previously tested interactively. Like, say, a configuration snippet within a README.txt. I think maybe the lesson here is: think very carefully before you release a package with any ZCML in it that you want to be a "library"; if users *need* to load the ZCML, it's probably really not a library, it's probably an application. If you're OK with it being an application, then by all means, you should have automated end-to-end tests. But if you really mean it to be a library, the ZCML should be "advisory" (close to documentation), I don't see a problem with not doing any automated testing of it if that means the package doesn't have inappropriate dependencies. - C _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )