[AstroPy] Testing Guidelines
Wed Aug 17 13:57:50 CDT 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<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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