Hello Kallithea from pytesters

[Marc Abramowitz]

and the code for said pylons nose plugin:
https://github.com/Pylons/pylons/blob/master/pylons/test.py

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Marc Abramowitz <msabramo at gmail.com> wrote:

> The nose plugin that I was referring to:
> http://pylons-webframework.readthedocs.org/en/latest/testing.html#unit-testing-with-webtest
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Marc Abramowitz <msabramo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think the tricky thing is that Kallithea is using the Pylons nosetest
>> plugin to initialize the Pylons app before the tests run. We will need to
>> make it so that the Pylons app gets initialized before pytest runs tests --
>> probably by using conftest.py --
>> https://pytest.org/latest/plugins.html#conftest-py-local-per-directory-plugins
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Marc Abramowitz <msabramo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking we can probably convert the nose generative test functions
>>> to pytest parameterized tests --
>>> http://pytest.org/latest/parametrize.html#parametrized-test-functions
>>>
>>> I'm experimenting with it now...
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire <
>>> patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire
>>>> <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Hi Marc,
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Marc Abramowitz <msabramo at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> Just wanted to say a quick hello. I volunteered for adopt pytest
>>>> month. I have used pytest (and Tox as well, which I suspect could be useful
>>>> here) quite a bit for both personal projects and my professional work -
>>>> i.e.: my current work at SurveyMonkey.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'll try to download and try out Kallithea soon (I've never used
>>>> it), try out the test suite, etc. and see where we might be able to get
>>>> some wins.
>>>> >
>>>> > Welcome indeed! I'm excited to get this pytest-adoption started.
>>>> > My hope is that this is not just one month, which is probably too
>>>> > short to fix the entire test suite.
>>>> >
>>>> > To get started, use following instructions to set up an environment:
>>>> > http://kallithea.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html
>>>> >
>>>> > You can run the existing testsuite from this virtualenv using
>>>> 'nosetests'.
>>>> >
>>>> > First step would indeed be to use pytest as test runner instead of
>>>> > nosetests. On IRC (#kallithea on freenode) Ronny already indicated a
>>>> > first blocker related to yield tests.
>>>> >
>>>> > Quick log:
>>>> > <ronny> patrickdp: atm there is one big pytest side blocker, detailed
>>>> > nose yield tests are not compatible with pytest yield tests
>>>> > <ronny> so right now the testsuite runs in a completely broken
>>>> > setupstate wrt yield tests
>>>> > <ronny> since the testsuite also uses very detailed checks with
>>>> > setup/teardown, a moinmoin style workaround (different
>>>> > collection/execution for generators) is not possible
>>>> > <ronny> (where not means not without lots of work)
>>>> > <ronny> im not yet sure of a good strategy to work that out
>>>> > <patrickdp> ronny: what exactly are 'yield tests' ?
>>>> > <ronny> patrickdp: yield tests are tests which use a toplevel yield to
>>>> > yield distinct checks to the test executor
>>>> >
>>>> > Any ideas to proceed are most definitely welcome here...
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the only test files that have yield tests are:
>>>> models/test_user_permissions_on_repo_groups.py
>>>> models/test_user_group_permissions_on_repo_groups.py
>>>>
>>>> In the tests in these files, the pattern is typically:
>>>>     for name, perm in repo_items:
>>>>         yield check_tree_perms, name, perm, group, 'repository.read'
>>>>
>>>>     for name, perm in items:
>>>>         yield check_tree_perms, name, perm, group, 'group.write'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> where:
>>>>     repo_items = [x for x in _get_repo_perms(group, recursive)]
>>>>     items = [x for x in _get_group_perms(group, recursive)]
>>>>
>>>> and:
>>>> def check_tree_perms(obj_name, repo_perm, prefix, expected_perm):
>>>>     assert repo_perm == expected_perm, ('obj:`%s` got perm:`%s`
>>>> should:`%s`'
>>>>                                     % (obj_name, repo_perm,
>>>> expected_perm))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If yield tests are a problem, what about just transforming such yield
>>>> tests into simple tests? Each test function that is currently yielding
>>>> new test methods would become one simple test, iterating over the
>>>> items and repo_items and asserting for each combination, thus
>>>> replacing the yield statement with the assert itself.
>>>>
>>>> This may not be as nice as a test could fail due to many different
>>>> scenarios, but since there are only test files that have this problem
>>>> and since such yield tests are a blocking issue as said by Ronny, such
>>>> a solution could deblock pytest conversion.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/kallithea-general/attachments/20150407/c20817fe/attachment.html>