I just released a Python port of Mike Clark's JUnitPerf. I called it pyUnitPerf and it's available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/pyunitperf. It is in a very early stage of development, but I think it's pretty usable (and useful) as it is.
I already received an interesting comment from a hard-core Python user from Switzerland:
"Problem with porting patterns/api's from java straight to python is that most of the outcome feels unpythonic. I'll not go about my own feelings python vs. java here now, but I just want to point out that there's already a rather large core of hard-python users who refuse to use pyUnit because of this, and pyUnitPerf's doomed to share this fate, unless of course somebody decides along the way to make it sexy and pythonic and takes on the trouble of lowering the red-flag again which java has become to lots of folks."
My own experience with pyUnit has been very satisfactory and for me personally pyUnitPerf scratches an itch.
I'm curious to find out more about people's feelings and opinions on this. I don't want to begin a flame war, but my personal take on it is that the various Java-based test frameworks are very useful and there's a lack of corresponding frameworks in Python. I'm thinking about tools such as HTTPUnit, Cactus, Abbot, The Grinder, and there are many others. I'm happy to see Jython being used more and more in such tools though (The Grinder, Test Maker, Marathon).
"Grig" <grig.gheorg...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Problem with porting patterns/api's from java straight to python is > that most of the outcome feels unpythonic. I'll not go about my own > feelings python vs. java here now, but I just want to point out that > there's already a rather large core of hard-python users who refuse to > use pyUnit because of this,
I'm curious what people find "un-pythonic" about PyUnit? I've used it, and while some parts of it seem a little over-complex to me, I don't see anything about it which is inherently un-pythonic. Is this just a case of Not Invented Here?
Roy Smith wrote: > "Grig" <grig.gheorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Problem with porting patterns/api's from java straight to python is >>that most of the outcome feels unpythonic. I'll not go about my own >>feelings python vs. java here now, but I just want to point out that >>there's already a rather large core of hard-python users who refuse to >>use pyUnit because of this,
> I'm curious what people find "un-pythonic" about PyUnit? I've used it, > and while some parts of it seem a little over-complex to me, I don't see > anything about it which is inherently un-pythonic. Is this just a case > of Not Invented Here?
I've seen 'py.test' proposed as as a more pythonic unit test framework. So its design may provide you with some clues. It can be found at:
"Grig" <grig.gheorg...@gmail.com> writes on 28 Dec 2004 18:47:45 -0800:
> ... > My own experience with pyUnit has been very satisfactory and for me > personally pyUnitPerf scratches an itch.
We use "pyUnit" extensively and are mostly satisfied.
There is one essential problem we hit more often: setting up and tearing down can take excessive time. Often, we are forced to abandon the test independence and let a complete set of tests share the main part of the fixture.
Dieter Maurer wrote: > We use "pyUnit" extensively and are mostly satisfied.
> There is one essential problem we hit more often: setting up > and tearing down can take excessive time. > Often, we are forced to abandon the test independence > and let a complete set of tests share the main part of the fixture.
That's not an issue with the framework, though, is it? Just with your specific tests and application?
