Menu
▾
▴
zunit-devel — General ZUnit discussion
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(2) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(18) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 |
Jan
(11) |
Feb
(2) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(4) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-08-15 21:34:36
|
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:29:11PM -0300, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 20:13, Lalo Martins wrote: > > You seem to be the only one who are developing ZUnit, so LRA suggested we > > name you project leader. What do you think? I'd sure like that. I think I even know what I could do about it. ZUnit still does not have a single bundled release on Sourcefoege. :-) Albertas |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-08-15 18:27:53
|
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 20:13, Lalo Martins wrote: > You seem to be the only one who are developing ZUnit, so LRA suggested we > name you project leader. What do you think? By 'you' Lalo means Albertas Agejevas, just in case anyone reads this out of context. Cheers, Leo -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Lalo M. <la...@la...> - 2002-08-14 23:18:48
|
You seem to be the only one who are developing ZUnit, so LRA suggested we
name you project leader. What do you think?
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
Those who trade freedom for security
lose both and deserve neither.
--
http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:la...@la...
pgp key: http://www.laranja.org/pessoal/pgp
Eu jogo RPG! (I play RPG) http://www.eujogorpg.com.br/
Python Foundry Guide http://www.sf.net/foundry/python-foundry/
|
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-08-14 10:55:52
|
Hi, Just commited more UI enhancements. These include a lot of tooltips everywhere, running count of tests in the title bar, and so on. Also fixed a bug where an exception in tearDown() would hide the exception in the test itself. Everything is still in codeworks-patches branch. If you have no objections, I'll merge it to main in a week or so. Cheers, Albertas |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-02-26 21:14:45
|
On Sat, 2002-02-23 at 10:07, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > Hi, Hi, Albertas > > I've commited the version of ZUnit we use into a separate branch, it is > tagged codeworks-patches. Thanks, that was a really thoughtful way of putting your changes up for review. It was rather obvious when you look at it but I haven't thought of it :-) > > It includes these changes: > > * Improved presentations with output formats in different directories > * Time stats > * Refresh button for a product containing the test cases > * voodoo.py added into ZUnit > > NB: The API of TestMonitor.addError and TestMonitor.addFailure changed > so that it is more consistent with other TestMonitor.add* methods. > ZUnitExternal/ExternalTestCase.py had to be updated for this change. Interesting, gotta check that. > Could you please review these changes, and if everyting is fine, I'll > merge them into the main trunk in a couple of days. I intend to, however things have been very hectic and I don't know when I'll be able to look at it. I intend to do it this week though and I'm sending you this message so that you don't feel left out in the cold :-) Regards, Leo -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-02-23 13:09:49
|
Hi, I've commited the version of ZUnit we use into a separate branch, it is tagged codeworks-patches. It includes these changes: * Improved presentations with output formats in different directories * Time stats * Refresh button for a product containing the test cases * voodoo.py added into ZUnit NB: The API of TestMonitor.addError and TestMonitor.addFailure changed so that it is more consistent with other TestMonitor.add* methods. ZUnitExternal/ExternalTestCase.py had to be updated for this change. Could you please review these changes, and if everyting is fine, I'll merge them into the main trunk in a couple of days. Albertas |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-01-16 20:46:25
|
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 17:08, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:50:09PM -0200, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > > [...] instead of > > verifying a verbosity component we could have a template collection > > name, which would be a directory name to be appended to > > 'Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor/' inside which we would look for dtmls > > named "error", "succes", etc. > > > > [...] > > A neat idea in fact. This solution is definitely cleaner than my > patch. In this case, do you mind implementing and commiting it? After that we could even scan the dtml/TestMonitor directory for other directories inside and create a drop box for the user to choose his skin collection. We'd assume that any directory inside dtml/TestMonitor is a skin collection besides the [Default] collection. > I even begin to doubt if we need an acquired presentation > directory, if it only takes to drop in a new > Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor subdirectory to add a new 'skin'. Well, I wouldn't discard the idea of the TTW skins so fast. There are people who are much more used to working from inside Zope than in the filesystem. It's much more versatile to be able to change skins insite ZMI, 'cause you don't have to reload ZUnit or restart Zope to make it work. > The test cases still aren't TTW anyway... Well, have you tried importing ZUnitTTWProto.xml in the Products folder? :-) Cheers, Leo -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-01-16 19:09:01
|
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 03:50:09PM -0200, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > I took a look at your patch and I was thinking that, instead of > verifying a verbosity component we could have a template collection > name, which would be a directory name to be appended to > 'Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor/' inside which we would look for dtmls > named "error", "succes", etc. > > So, inside TestMonitor.__init__() we could do something like:: > > dtmlPath = "Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor/" > if collection: > dtmlPath = dtmlPath + collection + "/" > > self.testError = Globals.HTMLFile(dtmlPath + 'error') > self.testSuccess = Globals.HTMLFile(dtmlPath + 'success') > ... > > What do you guys think? A neat idea in fact. This solution is definitely cleaner than my patch. I even begin to doubt if we need an acquired presentation directory, if it only takes to drop in a new Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor subdirectory to add a new 'skin'. The test cases still aren't TTW anyway... Albertas |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-01-16 17:52:15
|
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 07:06, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:17:59PM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote:
> > However, Leo's design was that TestRunner would acquire an
> > interface from the ZODB in good Zope tradition. Do you disagree
> > to this approach?
>
> Do you mean that TestRunner would acquire some object that would
> define its presentation? Or do you mean that TestRunner would have
> TTW-manageable presentation (DTML for now) methods?
Both aproaches seem interesting and both mean acquiring the presentation
from the ZODB somehow. Truth is, we didn't have much of an idea exactly
how, mostly because we haven't thought of it much. We'd think about it
later, but we knew we wanted to have it customizable or themeable (sp?).
Maybe we could acquire a folder or a folderlike object with the template
components we need.
I took a look at your patch and I was thinking that, instead of
verifying a verbosity component we could have a template collection
name, which would be a directory name to be appended to
'Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor/' inside which we would look for dtmls
named "error", "succes", etc.
So, inside TestMonitor.__init__() we could do something like::
dtmlPath = "Products/ZUnit/dtml/TestMonitor/"
if collection:
dtmlPath = dtmlPath + collection + "/"
self.testError = Globals.HTMLFile(dtmlPath + 'error')
self.testSuccess = Globals.HTMLFile(dtmlPath + 'success')
...
What do you guys think?
--
Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like
solitary confinement.
|
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-01-16 09:07:11
|
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:17:59PM -0200, Lalo Martins wrote: > However, Leo's design was that TestRunner would acquire an > interface from the ZODB in good Zope tradition. Do you disagree > to this approach? Do you mean that TestRunner would acquire some object that would define its presentation? Or do you mean that TestRunner would have TTW-manageable presentation (DTML for now) methods? > As neither of us is devoting too much time to ZUnit right now > (for reasons of job priorities mostly), perhaps you'd like to > have CVS write access? In good Wiki tradition, CVS is a > wonderful thing because if we don't like your patch, we can > revoke it ;-) Cool :-) I gladly accept. My Sourceforge username is albagj. Albertas |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-01-11 20:54:41
|
On Sat, 2001-12-22 at 19:08, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As noone took the trouble to answer my questions, after I've figured
> the things out myself, I think this might turn out useful for someone.
Sorry, holidays...
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:41:14PM +0200, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> > * How to call a DTML method from a Tests.TestCase descendant?
> > My take would be something like
> >
> > self.ZopeContext.re.Property.detailsHtml(self.zopeNames['_'].None,
> > self.zopeNames['_'])
>
> That would be
>
> cx = self.ZopeContext
> Property = cx.re.Property
> REQUEST = cx.REQUEST
>
> Property.detailsHtml(Property, REQUEST)
Correct.
>
> > * And, yes, any hints on if it's possible to switch the authenticated
> > user, so we could test our permissions management?
>
> from AccessControl.User import SimpleUser
>
> oldUser = REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER']
> REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER'] = SimpleUser('user', 'passwd',
> ('Role1', 'Role2'),())
Nice! I'd asked myself the same thing before, but never took the time to
look it up.
However it may not fool newer scripts and methods that don't use the
deprecated REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER']. Newer dtml methods should use
the 'SecurityGetUser' and other 'Security...' functions (see 'Zope Help'
-> 'DTML Reference' -> Functions) and newer PythonScripts should use:
import AccessControl
AccessControl.getSecurityManager().getUser()
And these aren't fooled by REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER'].
The ideal would be to have a way to compose a request object,
particularly if you could do it thru the web. I'll take a look at
lib/python/Testing/makerequest.py now.
--
Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like
solitary confinement.
|
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-01-11 20:13:03
|
On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 10:12, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > Hey guys, Hi, > > We're trying to clean up our development environment, putting products > we modify under CVS, etc. I've come across Shared/Hiper/voodoo.py in > ZUnit. From ZUnit user's perspective, there's absolutely no point to > have it outside the ZUnit product. Correct. > I understand that you guys put voodoo.py in Shared with a reason, The reason being that we think of voodoo.py a nice and general place to put everything that we consider 'magick' that we have to do in order to have a functioning Zope product. CallableItem, for instance, is the arctype (sp?) of a Zope object, containing basically everything that we consider to be missing from SimpleItem. > but > would you mind considering integrating it into ZUnit, at least in the > Sourceforge repository. We might. We haven't used voodoo.py for anything else anyway... Now if only CVS were friendlier about moving objects around... -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2002-01-11 19:26:28
|
Hi, On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 16:17, Lalo Martins wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:29:34PM +0200, Albertas Agejevas wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Admit it: the default TestRunner is dull. It's inconvenient as well > > if you want to see what actually failed. > > Yes. We planned to design a better interface sometime. The current design was a proof of concept so that we knew we had all the data we needed for a test report. Other interfaces would be a matter of replacing the dtml. Actually I thought about parameterizing which dtml was used so that we could have skins and stuff > > Attached is a patch adding funcionality of unittest.TextTestRunner's > > verbosity=2. It makes TestRunner recognize a "verbosity" property, > > and if it equals 2, give nice colourised output with test cases' > > docstrings, OK/FAIL/ERROR results and full backtraces. Makes running > > unit tests a joy! > > Sounds nice. Indeed. > > However, Leo's design was that TestRunner would acquire an > interface from the ZODB in good Zope tradition. Was it? gosh, I need to read that code again... :-) Anyway, the big picture I had involved having the test data collection and the display be completely independent. You should be able to select the template to view the test run under and then, when viewing the test report later on, you could choose different templates. > Do you disagree > to this approach? > > In case you agree, we may find the correct API for that and > adapt your patch. > > Otherwise, perhaps you could add the verbosity variable to the > default list of properties. > > Even better would be to add a "selection" property with more > descriptive names. I think that, instead of a verbosity parameter, we could have a template prefix parameter and then we'd try to acquire the methods for the template with that prefix, or we could go ZPT and ask for a ZPTemplate path from which we would fish out METAL macros. Don't know if we could stream those with RESPONSE.write() thought... > Anyway, I'll examine your patch in the next few days, if Leo > doesn't do it first. I'll take a look at it also > > As neither of us is devoting too much time to ZUnit right now > (for reasons of job priorities mostly), perhaps you'd like to > have CVS write access? In good Wiki tradition, CVS is a > wonderful thing because if we don't like your patch, we can > revoke it ;-) Agreed. -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Lalo M. <la...@ha...> - 2002-01-11 18:18:59
|
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:29:34PM +0200, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Admit it: the default TestRunner is dull. It's inconvenient as well
> if you want to see what actually failed.
Yes. We planned to design a better interface sometime.
> Attached is a patch adding funcionality of unittest.TextTestRunner's
> verbosity=2. It makes TestRunner recognize a "verbosity" property,
> and if it equals 2, give nice colourised output with test cases'
> docstrings, OK/FAIL/ERROR results and full backtraces. Makes running
> unit tests a joy!
Sounds nice.
However, Leo's design was that TestRunner would acquire an
interface from the ZODB in good Zope tradition. Do you disagree
to this approach?
In case you agree, we may find the correct API for that and
adapt your patch.
Otherwise, perhaps you could add the verbosity variable to the
default list of properties.
Even better would be to add a "selection" property with more
descriptive names.
Anyway, I'll examine your patch in the next few days, if Leo
doesn't do it first.
As neither of us is devoting too much time to ZUnit right now
(for reasons of job priorities mostly), perhaps you'd like to
have CVS write access? In good Wiki tradition, CVS is a
wonderful thing because if we don't like your patch, we can
revoke it ;-)
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
It doesn't bother me that people say things like
"you'll never get anywhere with this attitude".
In a few decades, it will make a good paragraph
in my biography. You know, for a laugh.
--
http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:la...@la...
pgp key: http://www.laranja.org/pessoal/pgp
Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://www.BroDar.org/
|
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-01-11 14:29:46
|
Hey, Admit it: the default TestRunner is dull. It's inconvenient as well if you want to see what actually failed. Attached is a patch adding funcionality of unittest.TextTestRunner's verbosity=2. It makes TestRunner recognize a "verbosity" property, and if it equals 2, give nice colourised output with test cases' docstrings, OK/FAIL/ERROR results and full backtraces. Makes running unit tests a joy! Oh by the way, the old ...F... stuff still works as well :) Albertas |
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-01-11 14:18:59
|
Rehi, After a brief brainstorming session we came up with an icon for ExternalTestCase. A stick of dynamite! Attached are a patch and a PNG icon. Albertas |
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2002-01-11 12:12:31
|
Hey guys, We're trying to clean up our development environment, putting products we modify under CVS, etc. I've come across Shared/Hiper/voodoo.py in ZUnit. From ZUnit user's perspective, there's absolutely no point to have it outside the ZUnit product. I understand that you guys put voodoo.py in Shared with a reason, but would you mind considering integrating it into ZUnit, at least in the Sourceforge repository. Thanks, Albertas |
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2001-12-22 21:17:07
|
Hello,
As noone took the trouble to answer my questions, after I've figured
the things out myself, I think this might turn out useful for someone.
On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 12:41:14PM +0200, Albertas Agejevas wrote:
> * How to call a DTML method from a Tests.TestCase descendant?
> My take would be something like
>
> self.ZopeContext.re.Property.detailsHtml(self.zopeNames['_'].None,
> self.zopeNames['_'])
That would be
cx = self.ZopeContext
Property = cx.re.Property
REQUEST = cx.REQUEST
Property.detailsHtml(Property, REQUEST)
> * And, yes, any hints on if it's possible to switch the authenticated
> user, so we could test our permissions management?
from AccessControl.User import SimpleUser
oldUser = REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER']
REQUEST['AUTHENTICATED_USER'] = SimpleUser('user', 'passwd',
('Role1', 'Role2'),())
Hope it'll be useful for anybody.
Cheers, and Merry X-mas!
Albertas
|
|
From: Albertas A. <al...@co...> - 2001-12-18 10:49:53
|
Hello,
We're trying to do XP on a Zope project, and find that DTML methods
need to be tested, however hard we try not to put any logic into
them. Now, there are two questions:
* How to call a DTML method from a Tests.TestCase descendant?
My take would be something like
self.ZopeContext.re.Property.detailsHtml(self.zopeNames['_'].None,
self.zopeNames['_'])
but it fails to see the methods in the parent folders... I have to
admit acquisition is voodoo for me.
* Would using ZPT make our code more testable?
* And, yes, any hints on if it's possible to switch the authenticated
user, so we could test our permissions management?
Thanks in advance,
Albertas
|
|
From: Lalo M. <la...@ha...> - 2001-12-17 14:44:31
|
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 10:33:19PM -0200, Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > Hi Lalo, > > Nice to have you back from the dead :-) Nice to be back from the dead :-) > Things here are ok, and we are looking at using ZUnit extensively one > more time (XP has been a little dormant over here, but we are trying to > come back on track). Zope is showing us that unit testing is interesting even outside XP. (Of course, I'd prefer to work only XP when possible...) > I think the tasks outlined in sourceforge are still interesting > non-Hiperlógica-wise. I agree. But this doesn't make it possible for me to cope with them right now - at least, not until I have net access at home, and even then I'll probably have higher zope-related priorities (as I said, a component-based version of ZUnit for Zope3 is one of them - I want to be as up-to-date on Zope3 as possible). Lalo [sig-less again, oh boy] |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2001-12-17 00:37:07
|
Hi Lalo,=20 Nice to have you back from the dead :-)=20 Things here are ok, and we are looking at using ZUnit extensively one more time (XP has been a little dormant over here, but we are trying to come back on track).=20 I think the tasks outlined in sourceforge are still interesting non-Hiperl=F3gica-wise. So, here is a list of them for us to decide what should be done or not: ZUnit: * Icons * HelpSys * Show test timing * Searching ZUnit-External: * Icons * HelpSys * Tutorial ZUnit-TTW * TestCase * Test classes * HelpSys * Tutorial * Icons I'd comment on each one of these if I wasn't lazy, but I'll leave that for another day :-) Cheers, Leo --=20 Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2001-12-11 22:08:50
|
Zope 2.3.3 has tests for ZCatalog On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 19:43, Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote: > Leonardo, > > "LRA" == Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > > LRA> it is trying to run the tests under lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/tests > > LRA> check that there is a __init__.py file under that directory. If there > LRA> isn't one you can just 'touch __init__.py' in there. > > Hmmm... My zope is ver 2.30. Which one is supplied with 'tests' > subdirectory? > -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Andrey K. <ak...@kd...> - 2001-12-11 21:43:43
|
Leonardo, "LRA" == Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: LRA> it is trying to run the tests under lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/tests LRA> check that there is a __init__.py file under that directory. If there LRA> isn't one you can just 'touch __init__.py' in there. Hmmm... My zope is ver 2.30. Which one is supplied with 'tests' subdirectory? Thanks for help! -- Andrey V Khavryuchenko http://www.kds.com.ua/ Offshore Software Development |
|
From: Leonardo R. A. <le...@hi...> - 2001-12-11 21:37:30
|
Hi Andrey. it is trying to run the tests under lib/python/Products/ZCatalog/tests check that there is a __init__.py file under that directory. If there isn't one you can just 'touch __init__.py' in there. On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 09:26, Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote: > Leonardo, > > "LRA" == Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > > LRA> On Tue, 2001-12-11 at 07:26, Andrey Khavryuchenko wrote: > >> Does it needs Zope Page Templates? > > LRA> yes. > > Ok. Started now. > > What module does ZUnit sample test? I get following error when selecting > 'Run Tests' tab in runner object: > > Error Type: ImportError > Error Value: No module named tests.testCatalog > > with following traceback: > > File /var/zope/Products/ZUnit/TestRunner.py, line 74, in countTests > (Object: Traversable) > File /var/zope/Products/ZUnitExternal/ExternalTestCase.py, line 93, in countTests > (Object: testCatalog) > File /var/zope/Products/ZUnitExternal/ExternalTestCase.py, line 74, in _testInstance > (Object: testCatalog) > File /usr/share/zope/lib/python/unittest.py, line 353, in createTestInstance > ImportError: (see above) > > > -- > Andrey V Khavryuchenko http://www.kds.com.ua/ > Offshore Software Development > > _______________________________________________ > ZUnit-devel mailing list > ZUn...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/zunit-devel > > -- Ideas don't stay in some minds very long because they don't like solitary confinement. |
|
From: Lalo M. <la...@ha...> - 2001-12-11 20:05:02
|
Hello ZUnit'ers, I'm back to life.
What will we do of the near future of ZUnit?
To begin with, I'd like to thank for the Python 2.1 patch. Thanks,
this is something I wouldn't have had time to look into.
I'll be trying to use ZUnit in production for the next few weeks, so
my development will probably be to iron out real-life
usability. Unfortunately, I am no longer associated with Hiperlogica,
so I probably won't hold to the task priorities shown in the
sourceforge page.
OTOH, Leo is probably still interested. How are things there, Leo? ;-)
One other thing I'm drolling for is a Zope3 (Component) version of
ZUnit. This probably won't take long.
[]s,
|alo
+----
--
It doesn't bother me that people say things like
"you'll never get anywhere with this attitude".
In a few decades, it will make a good paragraph
in my biography. You know, for a laugh.
--
http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:la...@la...
pgp key: http://www.laranja.org/pessoal/pgp
Brazil of Darkness (RPG) --- http://www.BroDar.org/
|
