[Biopython-dev] Rethinking Biopython's testing framework

[Peter]

>> 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).
>
> Then you will have to develop a way to execute only some of the tests
> (e.g. only those who doesn't make use of internet connection, or only
> those who make use of a database). ...

We already have that in place and working for our current framework.

> ... Michel's proposal is good, but I am saying that there are already
> tools that do the same thing automatically.

Well, let's go with Michiel's plan in the short term (a modification
to the current Biopython test framework, see his email of 24th
December).  We will then have a clear divide into two styles of unit
test:

(1) Those where the output is captured and compared to the expected
output (which will also be in CVS).  These are easy to write as
essentially any example Biopython script can be used.

(2) Those using the python unittest framework.  I think these are more
complicated and require a bit more effort and thought to write (and
debug), but make it very clear what exactly is being tested.

Peter