dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:54:32PM -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2010, at 11:19 AM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:16:38AM -0500, Augie Fackler wrote:
> >> On Dec 25, 2010, at 8:37 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > The other test runners I can find - unittest, unittest2, testtools and trial all
> > support running a specific test suite function, and can be run from a module
> > ("python -m $TESTRUNNER dulwich.tests.test_suite"). This makes it easy to swap out one
> > test runner for another, based on what is available and what the users personal
> > preference is. As far as I can tell nose doesn't support this; I'd be glad to
> > be proven wrong.
> The *whole point* of nose is that you don't need test suites. It
> intentionally ignores unittest.TestSuite entry points because it
> assumes it'll find the tests via discovery.
So there's no way to tweak what is tested without command-line magic?
I can see some use in using discovery to find tests, but I'd like to
be able to tweak what I do from within the Python code.

> Unfortunately, the
> tutorial (which I didn't even know was a test suite until this set
> of emails!) doesn't meet that description. That said, a tiny shim
> function fixes the problem:
The tutorial wasn't a testsuite until recently, when I found out that
we introduced some API changes which broke it - so now we're testing it to make
sure it will still work for users reading the docs.

> diff --git a/dulwich/tests/__init__.py b/dulwich/tests/__init__.py
> index 2b3a652..259c043 100644
> --- a/dulwich/tests/__init__.py
> +++ b/dulwich/tests/__init__.py
> @@ -126,6 +126,12 @@ def tutorial_test_suite():
>          *tutorial_files)

> +def tutorial_tests():
> +    for test in tutorial_test_suite():
> +        print test # only here for debugging and proving that it works
> +        test()
> +
> +
Urgh.

> >>> With the wider availability of python 2.7 - which includes a SkipTest
> >>> class - I would also like to support using the standard Python
> >>> test runner. If python 2.4, 2.5 or 2.6 is in use we can
> >>> fallback to an alternative such as testtools.run, twisted.trial.run
> >>> or unittest2.
> >> IIRC, unittest2 comes with a discovery-based testrunner that's got most of the features of nose. Is that available in Python 2.7?
> > See my patch - I'd like to use an explicit test collection function rather than
> > discovery.
> That's fine, can we use regular unittest for this instead of some
> other module? I'm strongly resistant to
> non-{unittest2,unittest,nose} options being necessary, even pre-2.7.
I don't see why testtools is any more (or less) problematic in that
regard than unittest2. For example, unittest2 has been packaged in
Ubuntu since Maverick, while testtools has been available since
Karmic.

> >> If you're really opposed to nose for some reason and are going to require a
> >> 3rd party installable anyway, why not unittest2? It's the backport of 2.7's
> >> testing system anyway, so nobody should particularly mind.
> > For Python2.7 users there would no longer be a dependency on any 3rd party installables
> > at all, only users of older versions of Python would have to install unittest2,
> > testtools or trial (or perhaps nose if it can be used in the same way).
> Personally, I'd like to depend on only the stdlib for testrunning on
> 2.7, and then use unittest2 (as it's the official backport of 2.7's
> unittest) for older systems.

> We can codify that in setup.py and make
> it the One True Test System (and depending on unittest2 for old
> Pythons means that we can continue using the normal SkipTest
> approach *and* dispense with the madness in test/__init__ that tries
> to get the "right" SkipTest. I'm happy to take on this work if
> nobody objects.
I can live with unittest2 as default fallback test runner but
would like to keep the support for using testtools without the need to
install unittest2. What do you think about the attached patch?

Upstream Python appears to have gone with SkipTest as the name of the
exception while we use TestSkipped. I don't have any particular
preference for what we should use.

> Another option (which I don't like as much):
> If you're willing to move to a decorator for test skipping instead
> of raising an exception directly, we can have the decorator erase
> methods when test skipping isn't available and raise the appropriate
> skip exception when it is, and then we can have the entire test
> suite be runner-agnostic. Does that sound like a way that we can all
> be reasonably happy?
I don't like that one either, because it means the fact that tests
were skipped (and why they were skipped) is hidden.

Cheers,

Jelmer

=== modified file 'Makefile'
--- Makefile	2010-12-20 14:47:32 +0000
+++ Makefile	2010-12-26 19:22:13 +0000
@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
 PYTHON = python
 SETUP = $(PYTHON) setup.py
 PYDOCTOR ?= pydoctor
-TESTRUNNER = $(shell which nosetests)
-TESTFLAGS =
+ifeq ($(shell $(PYTHON) -c "import sys; print sys.version_info >= (2, 7)"),True)
+TESTRUNNER ?= unittest
+else
+TESTRUNNER ?= unittest2
+endif
+RUNTEST = PYTHONPATH=.:$(PYTHONPATH) $(PYTHON) -m $(TESTRUNNER)
 
 all: build
 
@@ -19,20 +23,14 @@
 	$(SETUP) install
 
 check:: build
-	PYTHONPATH=.:$(PYTHONPATH) $(PYTHON) $(TESTRUNNER) dulwich
+	$(RUNTEST) dulwich.tests.test_suite
 
 check-nocompat:: build
-	PYTHONPATH=.:$(PYTHONPATH) $(PYTHON) $(TESTRUNNER) -e compat dulwich
+	$(RUNTEST) dulwich.tests.nocompat_test_suite
 
 check-noextensions:: clean
-	PYTHONPATH=.:$(PYTHONPATH) $(PYTHON) $(TESTRUNNER) $(TESTFLAGS) dulwich
+	$(RUNTEST) dulwich.tests.test_suite
 
 clean::
 	$(SETUP) clean --all
 	rm -f dulwich/*.so
-
-coverage:: build
-	PYTHONPATH=.:$(PYTHONPATH) $(PYTHON) $(TESTRUNNER) --cover-package=dulwich --with-coverage --cover-erase --cover-inclusive dulwich
-
-coverage-annotate: coverage
-	python-coverage -a -o /usr

=== modified file 'dulwich/tests/__init__.py'
--- dulwich/tests/__init__.py	2010-12-26 18:22:24 +0000
+++ dulwich/tests/__init__.py	2010-12-26 19:18:34 +0000
@@ -28,35 +28,20 @@
 import tempfile
 
 try:
-    from testtools.testcase import TestCase
-except ImportError:
-    from unittest import TestCase
-
-try:
     # If Python itself provides an exception, use that
     from unittest import SkipTest as TestSkipped
 except ImportError:
-    # Check if the nose exception can be used
     try:
-        import nose
+        from unittest2 import SkipTest as TestSkipped
     except ImportError:
-        try:
-            import testtools.testcase
-        except ImportError:
-            class TestSkipped(Exception):
-                def __init__(self, msg):
-                    self.msg = msg
-        else:
-            TestSkipped = testtools.testcase.TestCase.skipException
-    else:
-        TestSkipped = nose.SkipTest
-        try:
-            import testtools.testcase
-        except ImportError:
-            pass
-        else:
-            # Make testtools use the same exception class as nose
-            testtools.testcase.TestCase.skipException = TestSkipped
+        from testtools.testcase import TestSkipped
+
+try:
+    from testtools.testcase import TestCase
+except ImportError:
+    from unittest import TestCase
+else:
+    TestCase.skipException = TestSkipped
 
 
 class BlackboxTestCase(TestCase):

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature