On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 15:15 -0400, Daniel Holth wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:36 PM, holger krekel
wrote: Hi Nick,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 21:36 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
After preliminary reviews by Donald and Daniel, I have now pushed the first complete draft of the JSON-based metadata 2.0 proposal to python.org
PEP 426 (metadata 2.0): http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0426/
After a first quick read i am wondering if i missed something with respect to test tools. There are some fields which specify dependencies required for running tests, but there is nothing that would tell which test runner to use, which test command to invoke, or am i missing something?
Basically i am wondering how PEP426 could be useful/used by tox. best,
The first thing we might do is to have setuptools expose its test_suite argument as "extensions" : { "setuptools": { "test_suite": "callable.name" } }.
The way tox specifies testing is to allow arbitrary test commands not just unittest test suites. People use py.test, make and whatnot to run tests.
I think we need the next version of the metadata or sdist 2.0 to really do a better job than just running "setup.py test"; right now the tests usually only make sense in the context of an unpacked sdist. Input appreciated.
We certainly don't want to advocate using "setup.py" for running tests as we want to get way from the neccessity for this file to exist (correct me if i am wrong with this presumption). The metadata should be rich enough to support tools like tox to perform the testing, much like pip for installations. holger