pytest adoption: current status (beginning of May)

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On May 6, 2015 3:44:46 PM CEST, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>On 05/06/2015 07:34 AM, Jan Heylen wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:46 AM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com>
>wrote:
...
>>> * we haven't gotten much further than just being able to run the
>existing
>>> tests with pytest - we haven't seen any significant benefits from
>the new
>>> tooling yet
>> for me it looks better, it is one command to do the tests, and gives
>> very decent output when failing.
>
>IMO, it is currently not as good as with nosetests.

When tests are passing I prefer the pytest output over nose.

But it's true, failures are less nicely handled with pytest:

1. There is no simple list of failed tests. When there is just a few failures it's not that bad, but with many failures it's annoying
2. One can only see which tests have failed when the entire run has finished, while with nose one could immediately see the failing test and start checking/fixing the code...

Can these issues be circumvented in some way, perhaps with a setting?

Thanks,
Thomas