[kforge-dev] Changeset [1246]: [xs]: set DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE env variable in soleInstance.py so we can …

Mon May 5 19:36:13 UTC 2008

Rufus Pollock wrote:
>> We aren't diverging on tools, are we?
>
> I don't think so though I would *really* like to start using a 
> standard testrunner such as nosetest rather than our own hand-crafted 
> one if that were possible.
>
> I know this is something I've brought up before and we've stayed with 
> our hand-crafted solution as a results of your arguments but with the 
> development of e.g. nosetests over the last few years and our usage of 
> it on other projects it seems like it might really make sense to start 
> migrating to this ... (at least on kforge).

Let's stick to running KForge tests with kforge-test for now. That code 
could make better use of the unittest test runner code. I never 
straightened it out. But let's keep things simple and leave this aspect 
alone for now.

Of course in time we can change anything. But let's be disciplined and 
remain with the current state for now.

>> My view #1: we don't need to change anything here because nothing is 
>> broken.
>> My view #2: we both need to be a force for convergence.
>>
>> Don't you want to use the unittest package when testing KForge? 
>> What's happening?
>
> nosetests runs unittest-based tests as well as non-unittest based 
> tests ...

Yes, but you don't know that it does everything in the same way, and we 
need to run the tests in the same way.

Let's just run KForge tests with kforge-test. It isn't broken and we 
don't really need to spend time discussing it. Can't we both just run 
kforge-test?

J.

>
> ~rufus
>