Re: [Pyobjc-dev] Testsuite adventures

[Ronald O. <ous...@ci...>]

On Sunday, May 18, 2003, at 11:41 Europe/Amsterdam, Dinu Gherman wrote:

> Ronald Oussoren:
>
>>> After this investigation I'd like to know more about what the
>>> PyObjC testing policy is? Maybe a topic for some part of the
>>> documentation?
>>
>> We try to cover as much functionality as possible with unittests.
>> We are getting closer and closer to that goal, but we are not there
>> yet.
>>
>> I regulary run the unittests using the runalltests script. I also
>> try to remember to add a unittest whenever I fix bugs, but I often
>> forget to do that.
>
> There's no doubt about that! My gut feeling is simply that the distri-
> bution might benefit from some more consistency (something I'm notori-
> ously complainging about everywhere...). The lacking extensions is
> one thing. But I'd also like users to be able to easily run the test-
> suite themselves to get this "Yippie, it's working!" feeling.

There are no extensions because these are programs. I really hate it 
when people ship executables with an extension ;-). My first thought 
when seeing an executable with an extension (be it, '.sh', '.py' or 
even '.exe' [on Unix!]) is that this is probably some tool used by the 
"real" program and not something I should run.

You are right w.r.t. end-users running the testsuite. At the very least 
we should add a new subcommand to setup.py (is that even possible with 
distutils?) and/or document how to do that with the source release. We 
should probably also distribute the runalltests script, or simular 
functionality, with the binary distribution.

>
> Then, looking at Just's code I wondered where the bundebuilder module
> comes from, and I'm surprised to see it in pyobjc/MPCompat but it's
> installed in site-packages! This is what sort of constantly confuses
> me...

bundlebuilder is part of MacPython. We ship it because we use only this 
part of MacPython OSX.
Ronald