Am 06.07.2010, 13:12 Uhr, schrieb Martijn Faassen <faas...@startifact.com>:
> What do you mean, a doctest embedded within another? I'm probably
> missing something.
No, it's probably me getting the explicit doctest call wrong. It looks to
my novice eyes like print statement is being passed to a "doctest" method.
In matters like these it's usually safe to assume I'm wrong! :-)
Proposed solution: rewrite this particular doctest to use a test browser.
>> Furthermore, while it's great that form.txt actually runs I wasn't aware
>> that it contained any additional tests that are not already run and I've
>> always treated it as testable documentation not as an integral part of
>> formlib tests. But I'm ready to be believe this is a large misconception
>> on my part.
> I follow the principle that all testable stuff should actually be run
> during the tests - just in case.
hm, I don't think that can be argued with really, particularly given the
amount of time I've actually studied this and other documents over reading
the code. But I do think that, whether the module runs as specified, and
whether the documentation is up to snuff, are of a different nature and,
consequently, so are their failures. Shouldn't we be testing documentation
Clark Consulting & Research
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -