In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:
> Lastly, nose, by default, doesn't say much. When things go wrong and
> you have no clue what's happening, --verbose and --debug are your
> friends.
I found another example of nose not saying much, and this one is kind of
annoying. Unittest has much richer as
Does nose run all of its collected tests in a single process?
I've got a test which monkey-patches an imported module. Will all of the other
tests collected in the same run of nosetests see the patch?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 07/16/2012 02:37 PM, Philipp Hagemeister wrote:
> Can we improve the discoverability of the discover
> option, for example by making it the default action, or including a
> message "use discover to find test files automatically" if there are no
> arguments?
Oops, already implemented as of Python
Roy Smith writes:
> In article ,
> pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
>
> > After years of using unittest, what would you say are the pros and
> > cons of nose?
>
> BTW, although I'm currently using nose just as a unittest aggregator
Be aware that Python 2.7 and higher has unit test discovery in the
sta
On 07/16/2012 01:47 PM, Peter Otten wrote:
> http://docs.python.org/library/unittest#test-discovery
That's precisely it. Can we improve the discoverability of the discover
option, for example by making it the default action, or including a
message "use discover to find test files automatically" if
Philipp Hagemeister wrote:
> Currently, $ python -m unittest does nothing useful (afaik). Would it
> break anything to look in . , ./test, ./tests for any files matching
> test_* , and execute those?
http://docs.python.org/library/unittest#test-discovery
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis
In article ,
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
> After years of using unittest, what would you say are the pros and
> cons of nose?
BTW, although I'm currently using nose just as a unittest aggregator, I
can see some nice advantages to native nose functionality. The most
obvious is that tests can be
On 07/15/2012 08:58 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
>> What motivated you to migrate from unittest to nose?
> Mostly I was just looking for a better way to run our existing tests.
> We've got a bunch of tests written in standard unittest, but no good way
> to start at the top of the tree and run them all w
In article ,
pyt...@bdurham.com wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> > I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly
> (perhaps stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose.
> I finally decided to take a serious look at nose.
>
> Thanks for sharing your nose experience.
>
> What mo
Hi Roy,
> I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly
(perhaps stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose.
I finally decided to take a serious look at nose.
Thanks for sharing your nose experience.
What motivated you to migrate from unittest to nose?
After years
I've been using unittest for many years, but have steadfastly (perhaps
stubbornly) avoided newfangled improvements like nose. I finally
decided to take a serious look at nose. There were a few pain points I
had to work through to get our existing collection of tests to run under
nose. I figu
11 matches
Mail list logo
