[AstroPy] Testing Guidelines

Michael Droettboom mdroe at stsci.edu
Wed Aug 17 14:57:50 EDT 2011

On 08/16/2011 06:22 PM, Victoria G. Laidler wrote:
> 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?
The nose "compatibility" plugin in py.test handles only the most basic 
cases.  I have no idea how much work it would be to bring it closer.  
But I think in the long run, we should standardize on both the tool and 
the format, as compatibility layers are bound to diverge over time.


More information about the AstroPy mailing list