separate trial release (was Re: [Twisted-Python] Twisted Jabber

Jonathan Lange jml at
Wed Oct 26 21:52:37 EDT 2005

On 27/10/05, Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph at> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 18:58 +0300, Tommi Virtanen wrote:
> > Alternatively, wouldn't it be great if stdlib unittest, py.test and
> > trial could _all_ run twisted core unit tests properly?-)
> If py.test and stdlib unittest could run the tests without Trial
> *present*, that would mean we'd have to have a core API for running the
> reactor yourself in a test and shutting it down, so _NO_, that would not
> be great.
> This seems to a persistent meme though.  I don't understand why you'd
> want to run the Twisted unittests with a non-Trial runner even *with*
> Trial installed, especially with Trial getting better all the time.
> Based on jml and spiv's earlier mails I presume that some effort is
> being put towards this.  Insofar as this removes duplicate code from
> trial and uses the standard unittest implementations of things that
> unittest has an implementation of, great, but is there any more to it
> than that?

In particular, everything needed to actually run a test is (on its way
to being) moved into the TestCase class.  Already, many of our tests
can be run by unittest (unittestgui even works) -- because the reactor
stuff is going in TestCase.

The advantages definitely include reduced duplication and less code to
maintain.  But another big advantage is that (when we're ready) Trial
can use third-party extensions of unittest straight out of the box.


More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list