Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:07:32 -0700 From: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> To: Julio Merino <jmmv@meroh.net> Cc: "freebsd-testing@freebsd.org" <freebsd-testing@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Python unittest backend for Kyua Message-ID: <CAOtMX2hvfpskz2aTy5kwS3ewXPgNLeWeoS3AcSG4EUSK2WTPpA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <C288DCCA-6031-4C03-8163-8826FBCE12A7@meroh.net> References: <CAOtMX2g35ybAzFHriVuQqYMGq5Snm0%2BEcUWNhQgEr%2Bqx1xYpcA@mail.gmail.com> <20150214215750.GA5065@rodrigc-laptop1> <CAOtMX2jFi89wt1fC5OAAGZhEDHKpLZza=tAXU7WM5y-pwL4Yqw@mail.gmail.com> <C288DCCA-6031-4C03-8163-8826FBCE12A7@meroh.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Julio Merino <jmmv@meroh.net> wrote: > >> On Feb 15, 2015, at 00:16, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> Not much further than when I made that post, and no. In fact, I >> hardly use Python at all. Professionally, my company is all about >> Ruby, and I would be very interested in a Ruby test/unit tester for >> Kyua. However, Ruby's test/unit's implementation is much messier than >> Python's unittest, so I thought that writing a unittest tester would >> be good practice for writing a test/unit tester. Indeed it was. I >> found unittest very easy to interface to; it hardly took me any time >> to write that tester. But in the end I stopped working on it because >> jmmv and I disagreed about test isolation. Jmmv's primary interest is >> in writing system-level tests. He basically sees a unittest tester as >> an alternative to atf-sh. But my primary interest is in tying >> together separate components' test suites and get a consistent view of >> all results. So naturally jmmv wants the same level of isolation as >> atf-sh provides, but I want the same level of isolation as unittest >> provides. In fact, atf-sh style isolation is bad for my use case, >> because it can cause tests that were originally written for unittest >> to fail. It also drastically increases runtime because the Python >> interpreter must be restarted between each test. > > As a matter of fact, I have changed my thoughts on this. I would like Ky= ua to better support "unittest"-style test programs because that's what pre= tty much all testing libraries implement and what other people know... and = well, this model is just much faster and equally useful for the vast majori= ty of the cases. Well, maybe I should dust off my old branch and get back to work. But I don't know how my python tester would work with your executor branch. If I understand correctly, the executor branch dispenses with the *-tester binaries and calls the test programs directly from the kyua executable, correct? The python tester relied on the tester being a separate binary. The tester was actually implemented in Python, which made it very easy for the tester to interact with individual test cases. How would I accomplish that on the executor branch? -Alan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOtMX2hvfpskz2aTy5kwS3ewXPgNLeWeoS3AcSG4EUSK2WTPpA>