On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 06:47:26PM +0100, John J. Lee wrote: > Jay Parlar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On May 5, 2006, at 6:35 AM, John J. Lee wrote: > [...] > > > I know about nose, but it seems just a little too magical for my > > > tastes, and includes stuff I don't really need. > [...] > > nose actually has very little magic, its operation is quite > > straightforward. I've played with its codebase before, and it's quite > > clean. > > Maybe (but note I *was* talking about what it does, not the > implementation of same). > I don't know what you think is magic about what it does. The documenation is very clear about how tests are found and how you integrate with doctest. Its 'native' test structure is way easier to use than doctest or unittest and it integrates with both.
> > > And the new 0.9 branch uses a plugin system for some of the extra > > functionality, so you don't even have to install all the things it's > > capable of doing. > > Still seems a little OTT to require another library just to find the > tests. I did not need to install anything extra to make it work. I did eventually install Ned Batchelder's coverage.py, but I decided to do that even before realising that nose had support for it. I like nose a lot because its tests are so easy to set up. At a basic level all you need are functions prefixed with test. Assert a a condition, if the assertion fails, the test fails. Also installation is really easy. It's in the Cheese Shop so easy_install will find it, or you can go with the tradition python setup.py install. -Chris -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
