Am 06.07.2010, 13:12 Uhr, schrieb Martijn Faassen <>:

> 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  
>> the
>> 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  

Charlie Clark
Managing Director
Clark Consulting & Research
German Office
Helmholtzstr. 20
D- 40215
Tel: +49-211-600-3657
Mobile: +49-178-782-6226
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to