testing (was spambayes plugin, and other plugins)

In the spec you state that we would consider switching to unittest... 
That's the first I've heard of that.  I skimmed the mailing lists to see 
if we'd talked about this before, but I didn't see anything.

I picked nose (ha!) at the time after a cursory glance at the Python 
testing world.  Since then, I'm pretty sure I'd like to stick with it. 
It's well regarded on the testing-in-python mailing list, it supports 
extensions which make it more useful and I've been able to throw it 
together pretty quickly without a lot of hassle.  Adding tests is also 
trivial.

So...  I think I'd be -1 on switching from nose to unittest at this point.

Starting in January, Colin blogged about rewriting unittest:

    http://oakwinter.com/code/pythons-unittest-module-sucks/
    http://oakwinter.com/code/a-new-unittest/
    http://oakwinter.com/code/motivation-for-rewriting-unittest/

There was some talk about it on the tip list.  I think if that caught 
on, I'd be interested in evaluating it as a possible testing framework 
to use.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the current state of testing and 
whether we should switch to unittest?

/will


Ryan Barrett wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, will wrote:
> 
>> Adding some unit test related tasks is a good idea.  I'll do that in the
>> next round.  Some of the other projects have had tasks along the lines
>> of "improve test coverage to xyz percent."  That'd help a lot.
> 
> cool, makes sense. i've also written a first pass at a unit testing wiki page 
> for 2.0:
> 
> http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Tests
> 
> for convenience, here's the full text:
> 
> ==
> 
> Contents
>      * 1 Tests
>      * 2 Motivation
>      * 3 State of the Union
>      * 4 Framework
>      * 5 Unit vs. Functional vs. Regression
>      * 6 Discussion
> 
> Tests
> 
> Author: User:Ryan Ryan Barrett
> 
> Originally published: December 6, 2007
> 
> 
> Motivation
> 
> Unit testing has been strongly praised as a software development practice, and has become widely adopted in both industry and open source.
> 
> When a project has a comprehensive set of tests, developers are less likely to break existing code inadvertently. This usually results in more contributions, fewer bugs, and higher confidence. (We've documented these trend in a number of projects at Google by measuring the number and quality of contributions before, during, and after they had full test suites.)
> 
> 
> State of the Union
> 
> PyBlosxom currently has unit and functional tests for a few of its modules in the pyblosxom/test directory:
> 
>   unit/test_tools.py
>   unit/test_callbacks.py
>   unit/test_pathinfo.py
>   functional/test_blog.py
> 
> This is nowhere near complete, though. Also, none of the plugins in the contrib pack have unit tests. We need to write more tests!
> 
> 
> Framework
> 
> The tests currently use the nose test framework. The unit tests all follow the pattern of one class per test case, with _setup() and _teardown() methods. The functional test follows a different pattern, with top-level setupblog(), cleanupblog(), and test_harness() methods.
> 
> To run the tests, run:
> 
>   nosetests --verbose --include unit
>   nosetests --verbose --include functional
> 
> The Python unittest module is much more common and widely adopted than nose. We could consider switching to that at some point. 
> Unit vs. Functional vs. Regression
> 
> TODO(will): If you think it's worth addressing, consider filling in this section. Otherwise, we can delete it.
> 
> 
> Discussion
> 
> Discussion of this proposal is at:
> 
> gmane.org
>      http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.pyblosxom.devel/1981 
> sf.net
>      http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=pyblosxom-devel
> 
> Retrieved from "http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Tests"
> 
> Category: 2.0 Planning
> 
> -Ryan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php