Re: [pygame] pygame unittests

["René Dudfield" <renesd@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think doctests can be good, but for now I think we'll leave them
out... maybe we could add them in for a future time.


On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Nicholas Dudfield <ndudfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>