#128 Add Tox

[benred42]

Fixes #128. Adds Tox testing management with TravisCI support. I did not add Tox to any of your requirements files but opted to add documentation on how to install and use Tox to tests/README.rst.

[benred42]

The flake8 tests are currently failing which is causing the build to fail, but I figured that fixing pep8 warnings was outside the scope of this PR.

[ZuluPro]

Coverage shouldn't need a test env

[benred42]

You're right, it doesn't need one. Putting it in a test env is mostly a matter of convenience. This way when you run Tox locally on a branch it will give you back the coverage results as well without having to run coverage separately and it will still run coverage on Travis.

[ZuluPro]

I think coverage should be included as base test command. It is in requirerements-tests.txt, so we could use it easily in tox.

[ZuluPro]

@benred42: Thanks for all, we really appreciate contributions !
I wanted to make it since a looooong time, but you did.

I thought a tox.ini like this one: https://github.com/ZuluPro/myblog/blob/master/tox.ini
Plus env:

• doc: compile doc with errors
• lint: Use Prospector (https://github.com/landscapeio/prospector) compilation of many Python lint tools

What do you think about ?

[benred42]

Sure, that looks good to me. I can put most of that together. I'm not familiar with Prospector, but it doesn't look difficult to use and certainly looks useful so it'll be nice to give it a try!

[benred42]

@ZuluPro: Do my latest edits look more in line with what you were thinking for the project?

[ZuluPro]

Yep that's great, but I think something like: https://github.com/ZuluPro/myblog/blob/master/tox.ini
(without DB dimension)

Can you use {posargs:coverage run {toxinidir}/myblog/manage.py test} as command ?
Without {posargs}, coveralls won't have your report.

And coverage --fail-under is done by Coveralls.

It would be great to have a Travis' job by Tox environment. If you don't want to do it, I'll make after your PR.

[benred42]

You don't actually need to use the {posargs} form for Coveralls to get the coverage report, as far as I know. There was an issue, however, where we were getting a coverage version conflict between Tox (using coverage3.7.1) and Coveralls (using coverage4.0.2) that was resulting in no data being sent to Coveralls. Pinning coverage to 3.7.1 in .travis.yml like I've done fixes that, although a better solution might be to update requirements-tests.txt to ask for coverage>=3.7.1 instead of coverage<4. What do you think?

[ZuluPro]

Ok I understand and

• I really want {posargs} usage because it really helps to debug manually.
• coverage>4 doesn't support Python 3.2 so I prefer to use coverage<4 for compatibility, it doesn't seem to cause trouble. Coveralls uses coverage>=3.6 so it's compatible.

[benred42]

Ah, gotcha. So, I guess just leaving the line in Travis pinning coverage to 3.7.1 should be fine then?

[ZuluPro]

Yep remove this line, decrease the number of commit.
I think I'll take you PR and make some little modifications.

It will be more simple.

[benred42]

Sure, that's fine by me. Just be aware that removing pip install coverage==3.7.1 from .travis.yml will result in no data being sent to Coveralls.

[ZuluPro]

@benred42
Thanks a lot for all,
I'm taking your branch and made some modifications.
Your patch really helps me, thanks again.

[benred42]

You're very welcome! Glad to help.