pytest adoption: current status (beginning of May)
msabramo at gmail.com
Wed May 6 16:59:16 EDT 2015
I would suggest looking at pytest-sugar.
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire <
patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
> >>> * we haven't gotten much further than just being able to run the
> >>> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the kallithea-general