Integrated Testing - Peppable?

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:52:29 -0800, carl.manaster at gmail.com wrote:
> So...  Should I turn this into a PEP?

I would think a much more productive step one would be to put together the
proposed functionality with unittest and the trace module, and use the
output of your tool to drive some sort of simple output showing what you
are talking about. (Putting together a Tk app to show coverage would be
pretty simple as long as you don't try to get too fancy.)

I'm not too optimistic about ever seeing this in the language, but without
an implementation, I think it's about 0 likelihood. But remember, that's
just my opinion.

You need the experience you'll get from the implementation to write a PEP
that has a prayer of acceptance.

At least with a tool, worst case scenario, your PEP is rejected and you
put together a module to do it anyways. If you get enough people to use
it, you might at least get the module into the standard lib, though that
is also another big step.

No prose can compare to a live, functional demonstration. I, for instance,
am not *certain* this would be useful, but I think it is the sort of thing
that if I got a taste of it I might fall in love with. (Coverage is, of
course, not a sufficient condition to know your testing is complete, but
it is a necessary one, and a graphical readout with uncovered lines
colored bright red could be quite interesting and useful, even if it isn't
initially integrated into anything.)