You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Add support to nose2's testsuite for defining functional tests "inline" without having to split testing information between the actual tests and the "functional/support/..." dirs
#407
Open
sirosen opened this issue
Aug 15, 2018
· 0 comments
I find it kind of annoying to write tests at present for a number of things because the test cases for functional tests need to be defined in one directory, and then invoked and worked on from elsewhere.
I don't want to remove the current mechanism, but to supplement it with something more "lightweight".
I'd like to have some testing facility in which we could do something like this in the nose2 tests:
which automatically does "the right thing".
I can further imagine run_testcase accepting content for nose2.cfg, unittest.cfg, or even a dict mapping filenames to contents.
The important improvement is that we define the behavior we expect in tests in the same location where we define the content being tested. I think this would lead to us writing more tests more easily, if it can be done well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I find it kind of annoying to write tests at present for a number of things because the test cases for functional tests need to be defined in one directory, and then invoked and worked on from elsewhere.
I don't want to remove the current mechanism, but to supplement it with something more "lightweight".
I'd like to have some testing facility in which we could do something like this in the nose2 tests:
which automatically does "the right thing".
I can further imagine
run_testcase
accepting content fornose2.cfg
,unittest.cfg
, or even a dict mapping filenames to contents.The important improvement is that we define the behavior we expect in tests in the same location where we define the content being tested. I think this would lead to us writing more tests more easily, if it can be done well.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: