On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Phillip J. Eby
...
https://code.launchpad.net/~setuptools/setuptools-test/mainhttps://code.launchpad.net/%7Esetuptools/setuptools-test/main
My initial reaction is that it's off to a good start, but the tests themselves seem rather shallow; more like "smoke tests" (i.e., turn it on and see if smoke comes out) than functional tests.
Right, they are not detailed at all at this point
I'm thinking it might help to use the setuptools.sandbox facility to log files created, deleted, modified, etc. by the process. That would probably be a better test of what has/hasn't been done than using ellipses on the logs, which is order-dependent as well as having the ability to skip lines where the wrong thing is being done, etc. The way things are being done now, they probably won't be able to test some of the things that are most likely to break (i.e., the complexities of easy_install).
(Probably in order to do that I'll need to add a new sandboxing class that creates a "mock" filesystem and allows before/after expectations to be set.)
Here's a proposal that could be done in a new 'test' sprint I guess : - add something in the sandbox to record what is being done underneath (using for example what Ian has suggested - ScriptTest) - change our doctests so they actually use the recorded info : files created, removed, modified + return code maybe (but not the stdout which vary too much from one system to another) At least Chris Galvan and I are interested in helping in this. Tarek