[Chandler-dev] New Framework Proposal

[Mikeal Rogers]

That framework, the one you had commented on previously, is still  
being written. We were spending so much time maintaining the current  
framework, and we had so much negative feedback during the last test  
writing sprint, particularly about the logger, that we decided to  
quickly make this update to chandler automation.

This framework will make the transition to the upcoming framework,  
which we're calling OAF, a lot easier as well.

So to answer your question, since this framework was written only for  
Chandler and written very quickly, it is out of scope for now. The  
goals for OAF is end to end testing across all products in the  
"ecosystem" and on the list of features for 1.0 is integration with  
unittest.

-Mikeal

On Jun 5, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> At 02:52 PM 6/5/2006 -0700, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> As anyone who's been watching the commit mails must have noticed
>> we've been working on a new test framework for chandler.
>>
>> Currently all our work has been done in the test_framework branch as
>> to not conflict with anything else going on in the trunk, and it's
>> also given us some freedom to see if our ideas worked before trying
>> to propose that we move a very important part of our release
>> infrastructure to a new architecture.
>
> Has any progress been made on making this new framework  
> interoperate with the unittest framework (as per my comments when  
> the new framework was first proposed)?
>
> In particular, it would be good if tests could be discovered using  
> existing tools that are unittest-based, for this to integrate  
> cleanly with the rest of our platform (e.g. if any tests based on  
> this framework are included in standalone projects like plugin  
> modules), so that individual projects are fully testable with  
> "setup.py test".
>
> Perhaps this use case is out of scope for the intended framework,  
> and if so that's fine, but it should be documented as out of scope  
> in that case.
>