[Django] #32270: Changing Django’s default test runner to be more robust
Django
---------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Reporter: Diptesh Choudhuri | Owner: nobody
Type: New feature | Status: new
Component: Testing framework | Version: 3.1
Severity: Normal | Keywords: testing
Triage Stage: Unreviewed | Has patch: 0
Needs documentation: 0 | Needs tests: 0
Patch needs improvement: 0 | Easy pickings: 0
UI/UX: 0 |
---------------------------------------------+-------------------------
The default django test runner gets the job done, but it (and the entire
django codebase) can benefit from a more robust runner, like **pytest** or
**nose**. I will take the example of **pytest** because I am familiar with
it and it is more widely used.
Anyone who has used **pytest** with django will immediately agree that it
is much more pleasurable to work with, albeit a bit more intimidating. I
intend work on the intimidating part and make it easier by adding a lot
of documentation.
Please let me know your opinions on this topic. If it gets traction, I
will work on compiling a list of what **pytest** has over the default
runner, and what I intend to do to solve all of this.
**NOTE**: If accepted, this will be my proposal for GSoC 2021.
Best,
Diptesh
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32270>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Django
Reporter: Diptesh Choudhuri | Owner: nobody
Type: New feature | Status: new
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: testing | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Diptesh Choudhuri):
* version: 3.1 => master
Old description:
> The default django test runner gets the job done, but it (and the entire
> django codebase) can benefit from a more robust runner, like **pytest**
> or **nose**. I will take the example of **pytest** because I am familiar
> with it and it is more widely used.
>
> Anyone who has used **pytest** with django will immediately agree that it
> is much more pleasurable to work with, albeit a bit more intimidating. I
> intend work on the intimidating part and make it easier by adding a lot
> of documentation.
>
> Please let me know your opinions on this topic. If it gets traction, I
> will work on compiling a list of what **pytest** has over the default
> runner, and what I intend to do to solve all of this.
>
> **NOTE**: If accepted, this will be my proposal for GSoC 2021.
>
> Best,
> Diptesh
New description:
The default django test runner gets the job done, but it (and the entire
django codebase) can benefit from a more robust runner, like **pytest** or
**nose**. I will take the example of **pytest** because I am familiar with
it and it is more widely used.
Anyone who has used **pytest** with django will immediately agree that it
is much more pleasurable to work with, albeit a bit more intimidating. I
intend work on the intimidating part and make it easier by adding a lot
of documentation.
Please let me know your opinions on this topic. If it gets traction, I
will work on compiling a list of what **pytest** has over the default
runner, and what I intend to do to solve all of this.
**NOTE**: If accepted, this will be my proposal for GSoC 2021 to the
Django Organization.
Best,
Diptesh
--
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32270#comment:1>
Django
Reporter: Diptesh Choudhuri | Owner: nobody
Type: New feature | Status: new
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: testing | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Description changed by Diptesh Choudhuri:
Old description:
> The default django test runner gets the job done, but it (and the entire
> django codebase) can benefit from a more robust runner, like **pytest**
> or **nose**. I will take the example of **pytest** because I am familiar
> with it and it is more widely used.
>
> Anyone who has used **pytest** with django will immediately agree that it
> is much more pleasurable to work with, albeit a bit more intimidating. I
> intend work on the intimidating part and make it easier by adding a lot
> of documentation.
>
> Please let me know your opinions on this topic. If it gets traction, I
> will work on compiling a list of what **pytest** has over the default
> runner, and what I intend to do to solve all of this.
>
> **NOTE**: If accepted, this will be my proposal for GSoC 2021 to the
> Django Organization.
>
> Best,
> Diptesh
New description:
The default django test runner gets the job done, but it (and the entire
django codebase) can benefit from a more robust runner, like **pytest** or
**nose**. I will take the example of **pytest** because I am familiar with
it and it is more widely used.
Anyone who has used **pytest** with django will immediately agree that it
is much more pleasurable to work with, albeit a bit more intimidating. I
intend work on the intimidating part and make it easier by adding a lot
of documentation.
Please let me know your opinions on this topic. If it gets traction, I
will work on compiling a list of what **pytest** has over the default
runner, and what I intend to do to solve all of this.
**NOTE**: If accepted, this will be my proposal for GSoC 2021 to the
Django Organization.
EDIT: I also made a post about this in the django developers google group
(https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers) but for some reason, it
said that it needs to be approved before being moade available to the
public. If someone could look into that, it'd be great.
Best,
Diptesh
--
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32270#comment:2>
Django
Reporter: Diptesh Choudhuri | Owner: nobody
Type: New feature | Status: new
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: testing | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Comment (by ADI33352):
yes you can there are many good advantages that I see by viewing through
There are a lot more features overall, but I think one major reason people
use nose/djano_nose is that it allows you to very easily do code coverage.
nose comes with a number of builtin plugins to help you with output
capture, error introspection etc . So sure you can do it I Don't know
pytest much
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32270#comment:3>
Django
Reporter: Diptesh Choudhuri | Owner: nobody
Component: Testing framework | Version: master
Keywords: testing | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Mariusz Felisiak):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => duplicate
Comment:
> Anyone who has used pytest with django will immediately agree that it is
much more pleasurable to work with, ...
We shouldn't generalize, I've used `pytest` but I don't agree that it's
much better then Django's test runner.
I think it's basically a duplicate of #25707.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32270#comment:4>