Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#747 closed defect (fixed)
typofix and improve runtests.sh
| Reported by: | Amirouche | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | trivial | Milestone: | 0.7.0 |
| Component: | programming | Keywords: | test |
| Cc: | Parent Tickets: |
Description
- Ask the user to install *pytest* if it's not found
- report back to the user if tests failed
Attachments (2)
Change History (7)
by , 11 years ago
| Attachment: | 0001-runtests.sh-was-asking-to-install-nose-instead-of-py.patch added |
|---|
by , 11 years ago
| Attachment: | 0002-ask-to-the-user-trying-runtests.sh-without-having-in.patch added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 11 years ago
comment:2 by , 11 years ago
| Status: | new → accepted |
|---|
I'm not sure about both of these. Nose listed in the error is certainly wrong since we use py.test now.
The second one is helpful. The thing I wonder about it would be the specific wording used.
comment:3 by , 11 years ago
| Status: | accepted → review |
|---|
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
| Keywords: | test added |
|---|
comment:5 by , 10 years ago
| Milestone: | → 0.7.0 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → fixed |
| Status: | review → closed |
Merged the first one. Great catch!
I'm not going to merge the second one... I'm not totally positive about not reporting an error if you report tests failing. I don't think we've gotten a lot of incorrect bugs filed about said issues, and it might be that someone has a failure do to a particular setup on their machine that they should be aware of. It's a good idea though, I understand where it's coming from though, and I do appreciate the patch, even though I don't think it's a good fit.
Thanks amirouche!
patch provided, don't hesitate to reject it :)