On 28 Led, 06:01, Malcolm Tredinnick <malc...@pointy-stick.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 06:21 -0800, Almad wrote: > > On Jan 26, 1:19 am, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > Perhaps you could show some simplified example code? I have at least a > few dozen tests that do this and they don't have any problem. Serial > requests work fine with thedevelopmentserver. I know of plenty of > other people doing similar things.
Let #10117 (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/10117) be impractical, but minimalist example. > Depends on your definition of "serious". Given the thousands of Django > applications that have, at least, started out using thedevelopment > server, your claim seems a little vacuous. True. I'm just under impression of my new Django job in company where Django is used heavily...and I see a lot of problems caused by lack of tests. And tests are lacking because of some problems with test creation in Django I'm trying to point on (in bad manner, right, but being a bit depressed by running into same issues as two years ago when I first tried to develop with Django). > [...] > You might well have some reduced outlook on the time commitment involved > there, which is fine, since you aren't one of the people on the hook for > things like that in Django. The group of core maintainers have decided > to devote time elsewhere. OK, I accept it, althrough I still disagree. BTW I discovered DjangoCerise project (http://xhtml.net/scripts/Django- CherryPy-server-DjangoCerise); main CP WSGI is 44k; wouldn't be worth trying to integrate it in django, as it's well-tested and reviewed enough? I'd do it, if there is any chance for having it in mainline. > > Well, after I fall into small group of users that do some automatized > > acceptance testing (and thus require, like, Selenium) and discovered > > that things looks like working after I lobotomized Django and replaced > > it with CherryPy, I'm now satisfied. > > When you could have just used mod_wsgi, or CherryPy's WSGI server or any > number of other things. Nice over-reaction there. Probably true. I'm just in the camp that test running should be zero- setup and as simple as possible, or dev's will not use them (and I see that around me every day). > Note, also, that there's a ticket open in Trac to add some extra bits > and pieces for allowing Selenium integration with Django's test > framework. That would also give you some idea of the direction things > could go. May I ask which one? For Selenium, I found #2867 (marked as wontfix) and for requirements #3357 denied by core dev and #2879 being practically dead > This was a very disappointing mail to read. Whilst I realise you might > well be frustrated, the tone is simply insulting to the amount of work > that has gone into developing and supporting Django That is true and I'm sorry for that as I certainly have not done so much good work as You and core devs. > and tries to inflate > whatever problem it is that you're having (which hasn't been explained > in detail) way out of proportion. It's true that I have not provided enough details in initial e-mail as I should have. I hope I have now better explained my problems and motivations and why I consider them crutial, coming from TDD environment. > Regards, > Malcolm Almad --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
