[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/5] support/testing: core testing infrastructure

Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin at gmail.com
Sun Mar 5 07:27:26 UTC 2017


On Mar 4, 2017 19:12, "Luca Ceresoli" <luca at lucaceresoli.net> wrote:

Hi,

On 08/02/2017 12:42, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Petazzoni
> <thomas.petazzoni at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:50:13 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a particular reason why you use unittest and nose2, rather
>>> than the popular pytest ?
>>
>> First because I'm not a Pythonist, so I have no idea what is "popular"
>> in the Python world.
>>
>> What lead me to use nose2 is because it is capable of executing tests
>> in parallel. In practice, this currently doesn't work due to how the
>> Qemu emulation is started (I use a fixed TCP port for the telnet
>> connection used for the serial port), but if we fix that, tests can be
>> executed in parallel, this is something I had tested when choosing
>> nose2.
>>
>> Apparently, pytest can also run tests in parallel, according to
>> http://pytest.org/dev/xdist.html.
>>
>> I honestly don't care which Python testing infrastructure is used, as
>> long as there is one. If you think pytest is better (and indeed its
>> website seems to be nicely documented and it seems to offer lots of
>> features), then patches are welcome :-)
>>
>
> We have switched from nose (1) to pytest in Kallithea a while ago.
> We are not using xdist at the moment though, because our setup code is
> not ready for it.
>
> To switch to pytest now shouldn't be complex, it can off-the-shelve
> continue to support unittest-style tests. However, pytest 'fixtures'
> are the alternative to such setup/teardown methods and are more
> powerful. But you don't _have_ to use them.
>
> Anyway, I agree that it is not crucial at all, and the actual impact
> of nose on the code is currently minimal, so switching can be done at
> a later time.

I'm no pythonist at all, so I don't know any of the mentioned
infrastructures. But one thing I dislike in the current implementation
is the unpleasant way failures are reported.

ThomasDS, MaximeH, Do you think another infrastructure allows better
reporting? Or that nose2 allows it with small changes?


Could you give some example of the output you get now?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20170305/f0cd0c07/attachment.html>


More information about the buildroot mailing list