Switching from nose to unittest2 - how to continue after an error?

[Mark Lawrence]

On 25/08/2014 20:54, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If you wish to write tests using something that can be compiled out please
>> don't let me stop you.  Having said that if nose or even nose2 works for you
>> why not stick with it?  There's also testfixtures, pytest, doctest and
>> presumably others.  Horses for courses?
>
> The test cases are run independently of the actual installed code
> base, so use of the assert statement is, at best, a minor issue. We
> don't use -O where I work either. Certainly, for me, the possibility
> that code might get compiled out was outweighed by its convenience.
>
> The nose folks say nose v1 will no longer be extended, that nose2 is
> the future. Alas, the API changed for plugins (which I'm currently
> trying unsuccessfully to get working). A couple questions to that list
> have so far gone unanswered (granted one of them was today), and
> before my questions, the latest thread with any replies was dated Aug
> 6. (That indicates to me that the nose group is pretty quiet.) Seeing
> that nose2 was mostly unittest2 and no longer having any <2.7
> constraint, I thought I would give it a try. Unfortunately, from my
> perspective it appears that the authors of that package mostly came up
> with a bunch of different spellings of "assert", requiring a bunch of
> tedious unit test changes for no obvious benefit. I realize that is
> almost certainly an unfair criticism, that there is more under the
> covers, but the lack of support for the assert statement is a problem
> for me.
>
> Skip
>

There's activity on this list if it helps gmane.comp.python.testing.general

I've also seen a reference to tox there.  Whatever happened to "There 
should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."? :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence