ANN: pry unit testing framework

[Aldo Cortesi]

Thus spake Michele Simionato (michele.simionato at gmail.com):

> > As far as the base unit testing functionality is concerned, I think
> > they try to address similar problems. Both have assert-based testing
> > with inspection and re-parsing of assert exceptions for better error
> > messages. Both try to provide better fixture management. Both make
> > programmatic test generation easier. Both have a command-line tool for
> > running and gathering tests.
> >
> > I like nose, but I'm biased, and of course I think Pry has some
> > advantages. One difference I'd point out is Pry's tree-based test
> > structure, which provides a number of conveniences and features (much
> > nicer test selection from the command line, for instance). Pry is also
> > less than half the size of nose, and should therefore be simpler to
> > extend and understand.
> 
> You forgot to mention the important point that nose is compatible
> with unittest and many developer (including myself) would consider
> that a major selling point.

That's true. If you have a body of tests that would be difficult to
convert for some reason, that IS a big advantage. If, however, you
plan to use any of nose's advanced features, you will be incompatible
with unittest anyway, and you should feel free to consider competing
suites like test.py and Pry.



Regards,



Aldo

-- 
Aldo Cortesi
M: +61 419 492 863
P: +61 1300 887 007
W: www.nullcube.com