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

[Glyph Lefkowitz]

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.

One interpretation of this statement I could make that would in fact be
great is that stdlib unittest and py.test could add support for
returning Deferreds, but that would make them both alternative
implementations of Trial, not of unittest (which is so vanishingly
unlikely I can't imagine that's actually what you meant).

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?