[Community] Shapely testing

[Sean Gillies]

Hi Oliver,

I really appreciate the Hudson setup. Count me in for work that gets
more green lights.

I like Nose. I've been using it whenever possible for the last few
years. Shapely's test runner predates my experience with Nose, and I
haven't switched over because of the doctest suites legacy. Like you
said, the manual makes the doctest code examples redundant. I'll
gladly accept converted tests that maintain or improve existing
coverage:

$ coverage -r shapely/*.py shapely/geometry/*.py
Name                               Stmts   Exec  Cover
------------------------------------------------------
shapely/__init__                       0      0   100%
shapely/coords                       113    108    95%
shapely/ctypes_declarations          176    176   100%
shapely/geometry/__init__              9      9   100%
shapely/geometry/base                254    219    86%
shapely/geometry/collection           17     10    58%
shapely/geometry/geo                  47     29    61%
shapely/geometry/linestring          121     88    72%
shapely/geometry/multilinestring      64     48    75%
shapely/geometry/multipoint           96     85    88%
shapely/geometry/multipolygon         81     72    88%
shapely/geometry/point               121    103    85%
shapely/geometry/polygon             244    205    84%
shapely/geometry/proxy                34     33    97%
shapely/geos                         244    166    68%
shapely/impl                          38     38   100%
shapely/iterops                       32     27    84%
shapely/linref                        17     17   100%
shapely/ops                           55     53    96%
shapely/predicates                    16     13    81%
shapely/prepared                      24     18    75%
shapely/topology                      41     38    92%
shapely/validation                     3      3   100%
shapely/wkb                           21     16    76%
shapely/wkt                           17     12    70%
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL                               1885   1586    84%

Cheers,

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Oliver Tonnhofer <olt at bogosoft.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have setup a continuous integration server (hudson) for Shapely: http://dev.mapproxy.org:8080/job/shapely/
> It runs the Shapely tests with Python 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 and each with GEOS 3.1.0 (Ubuntu default), 3.1.1 and 3.2.2 (both set with LD_LIBRARY_PATH). It works pretty well except for the doctests with Python 2.7.
>
> I like doctest, they are a good way to document an API and it is easy to produce 'testable' documentation. But they have limitations. First, they only check against strings which does not work reliable when the formatting changes. Best example here are floating point numbers in different Python versions. Second, they are not flexible enough. I had to rewrite linear-referencing.txt to a unittest.TestCase, because it is not possible to skip a doctest (the tested methods in that file are only available since 3.2).
>
> I would volunteer to convert the other doctests to unittest.TestCases, if nobody objects. That way all tests should also run on 2.7. The doctests are nice to read, but since Sean provided a great manual for Shapely, it wouldn't be a great loss.
>
> Another point I'd love to change is the test-runner. The Python unittest framework requires manual building of the test suites and this is error prone. I use nosetests[0] for some projects and it is really great. It has auto-discovery of all tests (even unittest.TestCase), test generators[1] and a large list of plugins (like code coverage or XML output for hudson). What do you think? Are there any reasons to keep unittest? Has anyone good/bad experience with nosetests?
>
> [0] http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/testing.html
> [1] http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.2/writing_tests.html#test-generators
>
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at lists.gispython.org
> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>