[Biopython-dev] Rethinking Biopython's testing framework

[Peter]

Giovanni wrote:
>> nose is a testing framework, so it is a dependency
>> only for developers.

Requiring another external dependency does count against using nose -
it is much nicer if anyone installing Biopython from source can run
our test suite without having to install anything further.

Giovanni wrote:
> If you want to reorganize the biopython's testing infrastructure, then
> you should think about adopting a serious testing environment, whether
> it is nose or something else. You can't continue on relying on wrapper
> scripts, they are too difficult to mantain and they are not really
> scientifically valid.

I'm not sure I understand your point here (especially re difficult to
maintain and not scientifically valid).

I'm failry happy with the current test framework - I would rather see
any effort be spent on writing more tests under the current framework
than switching the framework itself.

Giovanni wrote:
> In brief, I think it doesn't make sense to write a new testingg
> framework just for biopython, when there are many already existing
> tool available and free to use.

We haven't been talking about writing a new test frame work (which I
agree isn't a good idea).  Rather we're talking about a modification
to the existing Biopython test framework (part of which uses the built
in python unittest library).  Michiel's proposal on 24th Dec seems
like it will simplify working with unittest based tests (especially
not having to track their trivial output in CVS/SVN).

Peter