← Back to team overview

lazr-developers team mailing list archive

Re: [Merge] lp:~gary/lazr.yourpkg/trunk into lp:lazr.yourpkg

 

Hi Barry.  Thank you for the review!  

I agree that for the case that you describe, a tests directory would be appropriate.  

However, of the several examples that I've done so far, we only have one such lazr.* package that fits this description (that is, one with tests other than doc tests).

Moreover, for this one that has additional non-doctest tests, the addition is so small that I'd prefer to combine them.  

Even if you disagree with me on whether those two files could be combined, the rest of the packages I've done initially all had a directory with a single file in it: the one that ran the doctest(s).  I find a directory holding a single file worse than pointless--a needless hindrance.

I guess we simply disagree that ./tests.py is particularly more jarring than ./tests.

If I ignore that one point of disagreement, then it simply comes down to this: the *exception* so far has been the kind of package that you describe, in which we have more than one test file.  For the rule, I've had to modify the lazr.yourpkg results repeatedly.  I wanted to change the template to match what I've encountered.

I must admit that I have thought while working on this that we might want a "large" and "small" variant.  Almost all of the lazr packages I've done so far have had a single doctest, for which a package README.txt and a package tests.py is quite sufficient and appropriate, without (to my mind) needless delving into further directories only to discover that they have a one-to-one relationship with their contents.

So, in this hypothetical magic wonderland, a ``./prepare.py --small``, with only a README.txt and a tests.py (no docs or tests directories) would most definitely be the default, in my mind.  A ``./prepare.py --large`` (with a README.txt, a docs directory, and a tests directory) would be a nice-to-have exception, in my experience.

So in sum, I push back to your push back :-).  At least once. ;-)  If you can agree that unnecessarily nested folders is at least a reasonable equivalent nastiness to your dislike of tests.py in the main package, then my proposed resolution possibilities would be the following:

OPTION 1: We commit this as is.  I argue it matches the common case better.  We can build the hypothetical magic wonderland when we discover we need it (releases of larger projects are frequent).

OPTION 2: I maintain a fork.  If I continue making releases as I have been, it will come in handy (it would have been handy last week).

OPTION 3: We work on the hypothetical magic wonderland now.

So, the questions for you are whether you can agree on the reasonable equivalent of nastiness (tests.py in a package is a reasonable dislike; a tests folder with only a single meaningful file is at least a reasonable equivalent dislike); and if so, which of the options you prefer (or propose another).

Thanks--and have a nice weekend--I'm going to sign off for the night ;-)

Gary
-- 
https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gary/lazr.yourpkg/trunk/+merge/4477
Your team LAZR Developers is subscribed to branch lp:lazr.yourpkg.



Follow ups

References