Newer cleaner shell tests based on roundup (https://github.com/bmizerany/roundup) #267

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
from

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@msabramo
Contributor
msabramo commented May 4, 2012

Newer cleaner shell tests based on roundup (https://github.com/bmizerany/roundup)

~/dev/git-repos/virtualenv/tests/shell$ make
./roundup *-test.sh
virtualenv
  it_displays_usage:                               [PASS]
  it_creates_a_virtualenv:                         [PASS]
  it_sets_VIRTUAL_ENV:                             [PASS]
  it_creates_directories:                          [PASS]
  it_picks_up_right_python:                        [PASS]
  it_picks_up_right_pip:                           [PASS]
  it_picks_up_right_easy_install:                  [PASS]
  it_populate_sys_executable_correctly:            [PASS]
  it_can_run_pydoc_on_a_module_in_the_virtualenv:  [PASS]
  it_creates_deactivate_function:                  [PASS]
  it_can_deactivate:                               [PASS]
=========================================================
Tests:   11 | Passed:  11 | Failed:   0
@pnasrat
Contributor
pnasrat commented Jul 6, 2012

If this is for discussion you might want to raise on list. My concern here is that it doesn't take into account windows at all, and our test coverage really needs to.

@pnasrat
Contributor
pnasrat commented Mar 30, 2013

@pfmoore I'm reluctant to go this way as I don't think roundup supports windows CLI/powershell (it says POSIX shell). Thoughts?

@pfmoore
Member
pfmoore commented Mar 30, 2013

Agreed. We need something that supports Windows. POSIX shell support is not enough. Also, it's not at all clear how this will work with the travis coverage reports (or indeed with any standard Python coverage checking).

Rather than worrying about "cleaner" tests (which is a matter of opinion, TBH), I'd rather see improved test coverage using the existing unittest-based structure.

@pnasrat
Contributor
pnasrat commented Mar 30, 2013

Closing this pull request - thanks for the patch - we appreciate you trying to improve our tests, but as Paul mentions it's not quite what we need.

@pnasrat pnasrat closed this Mar 30, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment