RE: [pygame] pygame unittests

["Nicholas Dudfield" <ndudfield@xxxxxxxxx>]

True, doctest is in the standard library :)

>> but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs would have them too

The impression I got from reading the python testing archives is that is
where it's strength is. Testable documentation sprinkled lightly throughout
the source.

Perhaps there is room for doctest. I personally am not against the idea. At
the end of the day it's not up to me but we can certainly discuss with
others.

What do you personally find the biggest advantage of doctest is? 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pygame-users@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-pygame-users@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Toni Alatalo
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:27 PM
To: pygame-users@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [pygame] pygame unittests

Nicholas Dudfield wrote:
> Also, I am under the impression people want to stick with unittest. Been
> wrong a zillion times before though.
>   

i have not followed the situation recently, have used previously things 
like py.test and seen that like you told many testing frameworks have 
come around

doctests are a part of the standard lib already so at least it's gonna 
be around, is not anymore yet-another-exotic-testing-tool, and has the 
unique feats that target other areas than the other libs. i guess people 
use several to complement, even.

may not be best suited for everything, like some internal technical 
regressions perhaps, but i guess it would not hurt if the pygame apidocs 
would have them too.. might be even an interesting area to start from, 
dunno :o

~Toni