Hello, * Martin Aspeli <optilude+li...@gmail.com> [2011-03-27 16:13]: > On 27 March 2011 15:54, Uli Fouquet <u...@gnufix.de> wrote: > > The (limited) experiences with py.test, however, were awesome. Some > > points that are quite cool IMHO: [...]
I agree wholeheartedly with what Martin has said about py.test vs. zope.testrunner. > > - Lots of setup code (unrelated to fixtures) can simply be skipped. No > > need to do the ``testsuite = <complex-testcase-collecting>`` over and > > over again. Maybe the main point of py.test. > You don't need that for zope.testrunner either, of course, at least > not when using unittest base classes. This is a point that bears repeating, though: test_suite() is *not needed* since zope.testing-3.8.0 (2009-07-24) for descendants of unittest.TestCase. > FWIW, I think we should stop using .txt doctests for unit tests. > Doctests should be used to test *documentation* ("the examples are > valid"). For actual unit tests, writing tests in a unittest class is > almost always better in the long run. +lots and lots and lots, especially since you've formulated it in quite a balanced way. > > For now I think that there is absolutely no need to think about a > > general move to py.test for the ztk. > > I think there's benefit in unifying the concepts and support for > concepts like layers so that people can use the test runner they > prefer. How can we make progress here? I'm not sure whether this calls for some green field sketching, "how should test fixture setup work?" or some hands-on experimentation, "let's see how we get some existing test layers to run under py.test", or both, or something else entirely. Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )