[RFC/MERGE](0.17) Auto load tests
jml at mumak.net
Tue May 15 00:21:13 BST 2007
On 5/8/07, Robert Collins <robertc at robertcollins.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 18:01 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> > Robert Collins wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:08 -0500, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> > >
> > >> Mostly I'm looking for feedback. I wanted to implement this for a
> > >> plugin
> > >> I was writing, because I was getting tired of manually tracking
> > >> filenames. (Also with plugins you have to be careful about your python
> > >> path, because you are actually loaded as bzrlib.plugins.PLUGIN.tests
> > >> not
> > >> PLUGIN.tests).
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm personally not a fan of autodiscovery of tests - it just feels like
> > > too much magic. If we are going to do it I'd rather we looked at
> > > leveraging nose or trial than rolling our own. -0 from me.
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > Robert,
> > Can you give some more background as to why you dislike autodiscovery of
> > tests? Are there particular scenarios where you've seen it cause more
> > problems that it solves?
> All the autodiscovery tools I've seen fail silently. This sucks :(. We
> have a complex (but worth the complexity) test setup, and I'd hate to
> see test coverage shrink due to a defect in the test loader.
Really? As a matter of policy, Trial makes noise on discovery
failures. If there's a case where it fails silently, could you please
file a bug report?
As the Trial maintainer, it's important to me that Trial's
autodiscovery (and hence the trial script) does work with Bazaar's
tests, whether you guys use it or not. (See
More information about the bazaar