[AstroPy] Testing Guidelines
Victoria G. Laidler
laidler at stsci.edu
Tue Aug 16 18:22:29 EDT 2011
Erik Tollerud wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Mark Sienkiewicz <sienkiew at stsci.edu> wrote:
>> Erik Tollerud wrote:
>>> In principle, the similarities between nose and py.test mean we
>>> wouldn't really have to make a decision until we need features that
>>> differ between them- developers could run whichever they prefer...
>> If the decision goes that way, I can write up a document describing a common
>> subset that covers most of what you need to do in routine testing. Then you
>> make your standard "use the astrolib-defined nose/py.test subset whenever it
>> is practical". Only a few unusual cases will need to deviate.
> That seems like a great idea to me. Unless there are objections, I'm
> inclined to suggest we adopt py.test as the suggested runner based on
> it having the widest compatibility... Or are there still misgivings
> about this? (I'm speculating not given that there's been nothing on
> this topic in the last couple weeks.)
Mike Droettboom has experimented with py.test a little bit while working
on a py.test plugin for Pandokia. He reports that it's not quite so
compatible as all that, ie, there are useful test extensions (such as
module-level setup and teardown) that are supported by nose that py.test
does not handle correctly.
Mike, do you want to say more about that?
Also, I meant to report back regarding the status of nose that I got
from the TiP folks a bit ago:
- the primary developer of nose, Jason Pellerin, doesn't have time to do
very much, but there is starting to be more maintenance activity and
contribution from the community on the nose-dev list
(http://groups.google.com/group/nose-dev). nose 1.1 was released at the
end of July
- the plan is to move to a BSD-licensed nose2 package based on the
unittest2 plugins branch, but that unittest2 branch is on hold until the
unittest2 developer (Michael Foord) can get back to it.
More information about the AstroPy