* Jim Fulton <j...@zope.com> [2011-03-28 10:04]:
> More generally, I'd love to see us adopt another test runner so that
> we can stop maintianing zope.testrunner.  When it was written at
> the turn of the century, there weren't good alternatives.  Personally,
> I think maintaining it is boring.

I agree, it would be nice to get out of the test runner business, just
as we're getting out of the networking business more and more courtesy
of WSGI. But I'm wary of throwing out the baby with the bathwater,
zope.testrunner has quite a few features under the hood that are
really useful, which I'm not sure other test runners have, and I
definitely wouldn't want to lose. Layers are the most prominent, of
course, but then there's post-mortem debugging (-D), coverage
integration, ... the list goes on for a few more items, I'm certain.

I guess, apart from the layer issue (see other messages in this
thread), some research and write-up would be a good idea to get a
feeling what the other test runners are like and how they measure up
against zope.testrunner. A quick google search turns up nothing
appropriate, so I might do a comparison of zope.testrunner, py.test
and nose, but that's going to take a while.

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to