You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I thought it makes sense to open an issue for this so that we can keep track of progress and discussion points.
I finally managed to get a POC discoverer for nose up and running which means it is not far of. It looks like there'll be enough overlap between the generic and Django-specific nose runner to work on both simultaneously. One slight annoyance, however, will be that for Django + nose, we'll need to have a separate Discoverer that is used in place of the existing one. There's two ways of handling that:
Check in the discover_commandline of DjangoProject for the used test runner in settings and switch between the default or nose one
Have a separate project in cricket.django.nose that overrides DjangoProject where appropriate.
There might also be alternatives to those two that I don't see. I personally think that 2. is the more appealing solution. What are your thought?
I'll update here and attach a PR as soon as I get a first version hammered out.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I thought it makes sense to open an issue for this so that we can keep track of progress and discussion points.
I finally managed to get a POC discoverer for nose up and running which means it is not far of. It looks like there'll be enough overlap between the generic and Django-specific nose runner to work on both simultaneously. One slight annoyance, however, will be that for Django + nose, we'll need to have a separate
Discoverer
that is used in place of the existing one. There's two ways of handling that:discover_commandline
ofDjangoProject
for the used test runner in settings and switch between the default or nose onecricket.django.nose
that overridesDjangoProject
where appropriate.There might also be alternatives to those two that I don't see. I personally think that 2. is the more appealing solution. What are your thought?
I'll update here and attach a PR as soon as I get a first version hammered out.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: