[py-dev] Thanks a lot for py.test!

[holger krekel]

Hi François! 

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 10:15 -0400, Fran?ois Pinard wrote:
> Hi, people.  I just wanted to share my enthusiasm for py.test.

much appreciated :-) 
 
> In a relatively short amount of time, I wrote a lot of tests (1122 so
> far) for the big project keeping me busy in these days.  With careful
> thinking and much using generators, it is very easy to lie tests down
> cleanly and quickly, in a progressive way, just as a way to crystallise
> my understanding of the project as it develops, making it more solid.

Sounds good. 

> For a few cases, test functions are more convenient and leaner than test
> methods, while in other cases, it is more natural grouping tests within
> test classes.  Whenever needed, setup and teardown helpers are sometimes
> better written at module level, sometimes at class level (I had not
> use for method level so far).  As I test on different machines and
> locations, the disabling feature is rather useful to cope with various
> limitations, like firewalls and such.  When I have some need to express,
> py.test offers a nice, simple, clean, fast way.  It's pure pleasure! :-)

hehe.  Actually we should also think about how to allow disabling tests 
at module level or even at directoy level, i guess. OTOH, there 
is the long standing idea of properly connecting tags/keywords 
to tests on directory, module and class level (these would all apply
to groups of test) and directly on a test function.  Implementing 
this as static tags should be rather straight forward.  

On a more far fetched note, dynamic tags could be assigned to test 
functions unintrusively, e.g. assigning "speed" tags like 
"slow/bearable/fast".  Such "dynamic tags" could be assigned 
during a regular test run along with "failed" or "skipped" 
information.  This way one could run all previously failing 
tests without having to use "--looponfailing". The main 
missing piece to implement this nicely is a concept 
to store such state. 

> And I did not even study nor use the parts of the documentation about
> implementation or customization -- maybe I'm not sophisticated enough
> yet for needing them :-) -- but in any case, it leaves me with the good
> feeling that there is loose power available if I ever need more.

Yes, although that area could need some clarifications and refinements. 
When it comes to "conftest.py" files there is a lot that you can do, 
basically take over test collecting and running in subdirectories
which is what is done for ReST or for PyPy.  
 
> All in all, it seems that one can do lots, by using nothing more than
> the simpler parts of py.test.  It's much comforting.  Thanks, gang!

hehe, many thanks for your feedback!  might make it to the
web page some time, if you don't mind :-) 

cheers, 

    holger