[Numpy-discussion] Monkeypatching vs nose plugin?
Wed Jul 16 23:07:07 CDT 2008
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 22:52, Alan McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Robert Kern <email@example.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.
"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
More information about the Numpy-discussion