[Twisted-Python] Thoughts about testing

Jonathan Lange jml at mumak.net
Tue Oct 25 17:26:54 EDT 2005

On 25/10/05, Antony Kummel <antonykummel at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The second thought is this: there seem to be popping
> up different testing toolkits each with their own very
> nice extensions and features
> (http://testoob.sourceforge.net/,
> http://codespeak.net/py/current/doc/test.html). Trial
> cannot benefit from this, having branched away at the
> pyUnit level. I think Trial's special features can be
> relatively easily formulated as plugins to a
> plugin-oriented testing framework (especially if the
> clean reactor requirement is relieved), and so can the
> other testing packages. What this means, is that the
> best thing anyone who wants the world of unit testing
> to develop, and to benefit from it, is to push for a
> plugin-oriented pyUnit, and for an implementation of
> Trial (and the other tools) as a plugin for that
> framework. I think.

Thanks for your feedback Antony.

As Chris pointed out, Trial has greatly improved between 2.0 and 2.1. 
Trial 2.1 has half the number of lines of code as Trial 2.0, for
example. The "whoop whoop" error *is* gone, as is the class that
contained it.

But one of the biggest changes is that Trial is now (almost) entirely
built as an extension to unittest. This is the way things should be. 
unittest is a great framework with a great design [1], and doesn't (I
think) need to be pushed towards any large scale plugin changes.

I'm definitely keen to think and discuss more about how Trial behaves
wrt the reactor. And I will leap *like a ninja* upon any reproducible
bugs you can file [2] with respect to obscure error reporting.

jml -- trial maintainer

[1] http://dirtsimple.org/2005/08/ruby-gems-python-eggs-and-beauty-of.html
[2] http://www.twistedmatrix.com/bugs/  -- assign to 'jml' with topic 'trial'

More information about the Twisted-Python mailing list