On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 22:52, Alan McIntyre <alan.mcintyre@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
Since we're discussing this sort of thing, there's something I've been meaning to ask anyway: do we really need to allow end users to pass in arbitrary extra arguments to nose (via the extra_argv in test())? This seems to lock us in to having a mostly unobstructed path from test() through to an uncustomized nose backend.
At least with other projects, I occasionally want to do things like run with --pdb-failure or --detailed-errors, etc. What exactly is extra_argv blocking?
It's not blocking anything; it just feels wrong for some reason. Probably because I've been duck-punching nose and doctest to death to make them act the way I want, and I can't fit all the doctest/nose/unittest behavior in my head all at once to comfortably say that any of those other options will still work correctly. ;)
It's probably just a pointless worry that will be moot after all the monkeypatching is removed, since the underlying test libraries will be in an unaltered state.
That's what I expect.
My preference, actually, is for the nosetests command to be able to run our tests correctly if at all possible.
The unit tests will run just fine via nosetests, but the doctests generally will not, because of the limited execution context NoseTester now enforces on them.
Personally, I could live with that. I don't see the extra options as very useful for testing examples. However, I would prefer to leave the capability there until a concrete practical problem arises. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco