On 03/27/2011 05:13 PM, Martin Aspeli wrote:
> 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:
>> - Easy finding of tests: just write some ``test_function`` in a
>> ``test_module`` and it will be found and executed. That also makes
>> py.test tests more readable and maybe more intuitive.
> I'm not sure this is always a good idea. It feels a bit implicit, and
> having a base class isn't really a big problem, IMHO. It seems a bit
> like the kind of thing that sounds cool (look, it's even easier!), but
> in practice makes little difference.
Belatedly adding my few cents here: in practice I quite enjoy not having
to copy ugly boilerplate from test modules that I always always forget.
It's actually nice to just write a test_* function and have the test
runner just work.
So it's cool for some people, namely me.
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -