Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> PEP 8 only has the force that people grant it. Nevertheless, it's a
> style guide that's widely accepted in the Python community, and
> adhering to it in one's code makes it easier to read for the majority,
> because it reduces the needless inconsistenc
Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > > I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
> > > testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
> > > unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
I didn't write this. Ple
Thus spake Steve Holden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> It probably reflects personal preference, but it's a preference that
> many people will maintain. I understand that PEP 008 was largely
> directed at standard library authors and maintainers, but anything
> that claims wide utility should have ambiti
Thus spake Roy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I've been following this thread for a while with a mix of amusement and
> alarm. Contributing code to the community is a good thing, and should be
> celebrated. If people like it, they will use it. If they don't, it will
> be ignored. None of whic
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should also note that converting from unittest to Pry is quite simple
> - Pry's test structure is a superset of unittest's, and AutoTree was
> explicitly written to make "unittest-style" testing possible, meaning
> that n
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
> Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>>> I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
>>> testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
>>> unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
>> Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 n
Thus spake Ben Finney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
> > testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
> > unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
>
> Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 naming a large black
>
> On Behalf Of Ben Finney
> Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Some day I might experiment with extending Pry to gather and run
> > doctests and unittests. At this stage, however, I don't believe the
> > (significant) effort would be worth it.
>
> That's very unfortunate. Until it plays
Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
> testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
> unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Which makes the deliberate deviations from PEP 8 naming a large black
mark against i
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> One last question : does it take doctests into account ?
I'm afraid that Pry is unashamedly incompatible with any other unit
testing method in existence, including but not limited to doctest,
unittest, nose and py.test. ;)
Some day I might exper
2008/4/5, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>
> > How does it compare to the nose framework ?
>
>
> As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
> they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
> wit
On 5 Apr., 23:54, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be fair I wasn't commenting on the whole thread, more on the angry
> nature of your final reply, and didn't really consider Kay's remarks
> fully. So perhaps I could ask *both* of you to be more civil to each
> other, and leave it at t
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
> Steve,
>
>> Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
>> people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
>> are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is far from
>> belonging to the "peanut gallery", and
Steve,
> Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
> people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
> are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is far from
> belonging to the "peanut gallery", and to suggest otherwise betray
On Apr 5, 5:05 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kay at least has a long history as a contributor in this group, so
> people know how to interpret her remarks and know that her contributions
> are made on the basis of a deep understanding of Python. She is
I am pretty much sure you are
"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Aldo Cortesi wrote:
| > Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
**tweet**
| >> Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
| >> with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclu
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
> Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
>> with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
>> did.
>
> I guess you do always run the risk of being pelted with something fro
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
> with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
> did.
I guess you do always run the risk of being pelted with something from
the peanut gallery when you
Aldo, when you confuse inheritance ( using an OO framework properly )
with monkey patching no one can draw much different conclusions than I
did.
I'm still very positive about the integration of code coverage tools
with UT frameworks and of course I've nothing against adding a CLI.
Actually *this*
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> A properly extended framework would of course be compatible with all
> existing test suites. This has nothing to do with monkeypatching. I'm
> not sure you even understand the concepts you are talking about.
I'm afraid I'm just going to have to assur
Thus spake BJörn Lindqvist ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Isn't nose tree-based too? You can select both single test-cases
> suites or directories to run.
Well, in a way, perhaps. But not in the sense that Pry is. In Pry you
can nest test fixtures (setUp/tearDown pairs) within test fixtures,
allowing arb
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>
> > How does it compare to the nose framework ?
>
> As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
> they try to address similar problems. Both hav
Thus spake Michele Simionato ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
> > they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
> > with inspection and re-parsing of assert exceptions for better error
> > messages. Both try to prov
On 5 Apr., 12:26, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
> > inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
> > TestLoader and you are free to derive from Test
On Apr 5, 12:54 pm, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > How does it compare to the nose framework ?
>
> As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
> they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based tes
On 5 Apr., 12:26, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
> > inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
> > TestLoader and you are free to derive from Test
Thus spake Matthieu Brucher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> How does it compare to the nose framework ?
As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
with inspection and re-parsing of assert exceptions for better er
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> I'm not entirely sure what you are claiming here. From source
> inspections I can see that TestSuite instances are instantiated by the
> TestLoader and you are free to derive from TestLoader, overwrite its
> methods and pass around another instance th
On 5 Apr., 10:26, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, why did I re-write it? Well, I needed a test framework that didn't
> have the deep flaws that unittest has. I needed good hierarchical
> fixture management. I needed something that didn't instantiate test
> suites automatically, freei
2008/4/5, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>
> > But you could have added the integration of code coverage and other
> > helpful features with unittest as a conservative extension giving
> > everyone a chance to use it directly with existing tests
Thus spake Kay Schluehr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> But you could have added the integration of code coverage and other
> helpful features with unittest as a conservative extension giving
> everyone a chance to use it directly with existing tests instead of
> forcing them to rewrite their tests for bik
On 2 Apr., 06:38, Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > > We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
> > > framework.
>
> > Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
>
> > If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
> > cou
Hi Jim,
Thus spake j vickroy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
> >
> > Features
> >
> >
> > * Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty
> > benchmarking
> > * Assertion-based tests - no ugly
Aldo Cortesi wrote:
> We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
>
> Features
>
>
> * Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty benchmarking
> * Assertion-based tests - no ugly failUnless*, failIf*, etc. methods
> * Tree-base
Hi Ben,
> > We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
> > framework.
>
> Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
>
> If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
> could we please have names that adhere to the Python style guide
> ?
>
Aldo Cortesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing
> framework.
Thanks for the announcement, and for the software.
If Pry is already incompatible with xUnit (i.e. Python's 'unittest'),
could we please have names that adhere to the Python
We are happy to announce the first release of Pry, a unit testing framework.
Features
* Built-in coverage analysis, profiling, and quick-and-dirty benchmarking
* Assertion-based tests - no ugly failUnless*, failIf*, etc. methods
* Tree-based test structure for better fixture
37 matches
Mail list logo
