more extensive tests about python-blosc HOT 10 CLOSED

On 4/11/13 3:01 PM, Valentin Haenel wrote:

These days I tend to do most of my testing with |nosetests| for
discovery and test functions provided by |nose.tools|.

Regarding this, frankly, I would like to keep the requirements as
lightweight as possible, so I would not require nose. If we have to use
test units, let's use just what is included in the standard Python
library (i.e. unittest).

How would you prefer to add more tests? I would propose using a file
|test_blosc.py| with simple test functions.

Yes, that would be good. Then perhaps we can add a blosc.test() that
can run the tests interactively.

Francesc Alted

from python-blosc.

Ok, let's keep it simple then. If anyone wants the can always use the nosetest runner anyway. Also, we need to make sure to use only the testing constructs available in 2.6. IIRC there has been quiet a few additions unittest in 2.7.

from python-blosc.

On 4/11/13 3:35 PM, Valentin Haenel wrote:

Ok, let's keep it simple then. If anyone wants the can always use the
|nosetest| runner anyway. Also, we need to make sure to use only the
testing constructs available in 2.6. IIRC there has been quiet a few
additions |unittest| in 2.7.

Well, another possibility is to require Python 2.7 for the forthcoming
release. This would open the door to use memoryviews inside too.

Francesc Alted

from python-blosc.

Would fit quite nicely with the new 2.7.4 which was released 5 days ago. On the other hand, I did backport Bloscpack to 2.6 quite some time ago. If you think we will not loose users by requiring 2.7, then we should move forwards.

from python-blosc.

Well, we really need to go with a Python version released 5 days ago?
If so, I think it is better to stay with 2.6. It should not be that
grave to come up with some tests in pure unittest :)

On 4/11/13 4:53 PM, Valentin Haenel wrote:

Would fit quite nicely with the new 2.7.4 which was released 5 days
ago. On the other hand, I did backport Bloscpack to 2.6 quite some
time ago. If you think we will not loose users by requiring 2.7, then
we should move forwards.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/FrancescAlted/python-blosc/issues/24#issuecomment-16239524.

Francesc Alted

from python-blosc.

We could use the unittest2 package which is a backport of the Python 2.7 features to 2.6 (and beyond):

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/unittest2

from python-blosc.

see: #32 for an initial stub.

from python-blosc.

Can probably close this for now, as #32 has been merged. More testing, esp. of the c-extension can always be added in a later PR.

from python-blosc.

Yes. I'm adding some more checks on parameters in toplevel.py so that we can get rid of these checks in the C extension.

Impressive job, as always. Thanks a bunch! (BTW, are you attached to a keyboard?)

from python-blosc.

@FrancescAlted well, this project is my top priority right now, so I can just make time for it. Haven't had this much fun coding for a long time. BTW: probably makes sense to address #29 in this context, since we can now safely refactor -- given the unit tests. Ahhhhh, the joy of working according to best practices. 👍 👍 👍

from python-blosc.