[IPython-dev] Proposal to get unit test coverage as soon as possible
Thu Sep 18 12:46:15 CDT 2008
Has anyone investigated the nose.twistedtools API
Given that we've standardized on using nose for tests, it may also be
worth standardizing on using nose.twistedtools when possible so that
folks don't have to keep nose vs. trial differences in their heads (as
I've already demonstrated, I'm clearly incapable of keeping it all
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Fernando Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Brian Granger <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> I suppose we should try to cover as much of the classic ipython code
>>> as possible. Even if we can't easily ensure that something behaves
>>> correctly without lot of stubbing work (as opposed to something
>>> obvious such as crashing), we should at least *excercise* as much of
>>> the code as possible.
>> Yes, definitely. For example, I just added a get_ipython_dir function
>> to genutils.py and the best way of testing it is too simply all it.
>> Of course, with nose and all the new testing capabilities that
>> Fernando has added, in many cases we can do more details testing.
>> Fernando, do you have plans on writing up some Sphinx docs in the
>> developer section about testing? I know that your testing stuff does
>> *way* more than we are taking advantage of.
> Yes, I'm sorry that in the madness of 0.9 I just wrote all that code
> and didn't explain well enough how to use it. I'll definitely add to
> the developer manual a section on testing so this is easier for
> everyone to do.
>> So, I vote for no exceptions to code review for tests
> +1 to no exceptions, thanks for the well-reasoned discussion.
>> PS - because I do want everyone to start writing lots of tests, I
>> think it is important that all of us really make an effort to do code
>> reviews for this stuff promptly.
> Yup. I'll try to catch up on reviews on Friday, I'm a little swamped right now.
> IPython-dev mailing list
More information about the IPython-dev