* 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.
> > - 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
> 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
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
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -