Parallel package hierarchies/directories
Hi, I'd need a logical way to organize my unit tests into packages, but I don't know how to do it in python. I'd like to separate my test sources (modules) from the code. The problem is that it seems that python does not allow a package to spread through multiple directories. I'd like to have the following layout (which is the usual way we do it e.g. in java): +-project_root/ | +-src/ | | | +-soap | +-test/ | +-soap 'soap' is a package under the source tree. I.e. I'd like my test source tree to mirror the source tree and have package specific tests in the same package as the code they excersize. However I found that this is not possible, at least not the way I wanted, not without moving files. I tried to place a script that would run all tests under the 'test' directory. It added 'src' to the sys.path, but then it was only able to import packages from test/soap and not src/soap. Is there a way I can have python look for soap package modules in both places? If not, then could someone tell me what is the usual way to layout test code? Thanks, atleta -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Parallel package hierarchies/directories
OK, I'm answering my own question, it might be of some help for someone in the future: yes, it's possible to have parts of the same package in multiple directories, it's just not enabled by default. To make it work each such package should have the following code in their __init__.py: from pkgutil import extend_path __path__ = extend_path(__path__, __name__) Actually pkgutil's documentation explains this quite clearly: http://docs.python.org/library/pkgutil.html (It's easy if you know where to look ;) ) Laszlo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Adding a field to a 'foreign' object from the outside
Hi, I'm working with a callback API (a DBus one) and I'd need to store some state between the calls somewhere. I know that it's possible to extend an object with fields after creation, so I could just store my data in the session object that is passed in with every callback. However it stinks from OO perspective, at least to me. The other option, something that I'd do in java for example, would be to set up a mapping (a dict) using the session object as a key. Which one is the 'pythonic' way? Do you use the first method (modifying an object that you don't even control the source of) or do you write a bit more code and go with the second one? Thanks, Laszlo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
