On 03/05/2013 05:10 PM, Brian Sutherland wrote:
So far, it seems webtest has all the features needed to do the
>switch. I started a branch at github ([2]) to track work in
>progress. The goal is to make most (say 80%) of existing tests to
>work without modifications under new implementation.

Looking at the branch, it seems that this is basically going to be a
re-write of the existing code.

Yes, it is a re-write, but not re-write from scratch. I use existing code as much as possible.

You're planning to keep the mechanize backend available?

Initially we didn't plan to keep mechanize. I think it would add an unjustified burden of choice to users (which backend to pick, if they work the same way?) and mechanize backend will/may not work in python3 anyway.

The question of how compatible the webtest-based implementation will be, is still an open one though. However, we have a big real-world project to test compatibility against.

Might I suggest zope.testbrowser.webtest for the WebTest backed
testbrowser rather than zope.testbrowser.browser2?

I admit there is a bit of mess right now in the branch as I need to preserve existing code to copy when applicable. My plan is to rename z.t.browser2 to z.t.browser eventually, so it is not a final name.

Could you also keep the tests for the mechanize testbrowser intact?
They could be skipped if mechanize is not importable and mechanize
downgraded to an optional dependency.

Again, if the compatibility of new implementation is proven to be "good enough", I see no reason to keep mechanize around. I might miss some important reasons, though.

Andrey Lebedev aka -.- . -.. -.. . .-.
Software engineer
Homepage: http://lebedev.lt/
Jabber ID: ked...@jabber.ru
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