Request for individuals interested in reviewing test / python topics

[Garrett Cooper]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alexander Leidinger
> <Alexander at leidinger.net> wrote:
>> Quoting Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> (from Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:08:02
>> -0800):
>>
>>> Hello Hackers and Porters,
>>>        I'm currently working on a proposal to the FreeBSD foundation to
>>> use Python Nose as a testing framework for writing tests. If there are
>>
>> Are you aware of the history of the current regression tests?
>>
>> If not:
>>
>> It started without a structure, then some work was done to move to the perl
>> testing framework style (really only the output of the tests, and the naming
>> conventions in the directory). This was not completed, and newer tests may
>> not comply.
>>
>> The reason for choosing the perl style was, to be able to use the extensive
>> perl tools to
>>  - automatically run all the tests
>>  - be able to compare different runs with the perl tools
>>  - be able to generate a lot of different output formats (html/text/...)
>>
>> There's also a wiki page about testing, which you may want to check out:
>>    http://wiki.freebsd.org/TetIntegration
>>
>> I don't really know python nose. I just looked at it quickly and can not see
>> any big benefit compared to the perl test protocol outlined above (and the
>> stuff outlined in the wiki looks even more advanced than that). Would you
>> please elaborate where you see the benefits of it?
>>
>> Note that during release building perl is needed anyway to generate the
>> index for the ports collection. I don't know if python is required currently
>> during the release generation.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Alexander.
>
> Alexander,

Wanted to clarify a few points where I didn't properly word things:

> Thanks for getting back with me so quickly. Let me help explain a bit...

[..]

> executing entire tests, it's not helpful when executing selected

s/entire tests/test suites/

[..]

> developing a fix for a feature bugfix and were provided a single

s/feature bugfix/feature/

[..]

> Furthermore,

s/Furthermore,//

Thanks,
-Garrett