These tests were added before pytest was ever considered for use with cctbx so there was no reason to follow the convention of which you speak when writing the tests. The testing system that we use works fine so I'm not sure why reimplementing it is necessary. We are happy to help you get up and running with the current system.

Cheers

Nigel

---

Nigel W. Moriarty
Building 33R0349, Molecular Biophysics and Integrated Bioimaging

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720-8235
Phone : 510-486-5709 Email : NWMoriarty@LBL.gov
Fax : 510-486-5909 Web : CCI.LBL.gov

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:58 PM Pearce, N.M. (Nick) <n.m.pearce@uu.nl> wrote:

Hi,

I’m trying to use the automatic pytest discovery in mmtbx and I notice that there are a few “libtbx-style” tests, namely
"$D/conformation_dependent_library/test_cdl.py",
"$D/conformation_dependent_library/test_cdl_esd.py",
“$D/conformation_dependent_library/test_rdl.py",
"$D/conformation_dependent_library/test_hpdl.py”,
that follow the “pytest” naming convention, and are thus picked up by the pytest.discover() function. They then error because pytest cannot run them.

There are — as far as I can tell — normal libtbx tests (they are registered in run_tests.py). Is there any reason they do not follow the typical naming convention?

Changing their filenames and modifying run_tests.py accordingly seems to lead to the same behaviour when running tests.

Is there any reason they should not be renamed from “test_*.py” to “tst_*.py”?

Thanks,
Nick

_______________________________________________
cctbxbb mailing list
cctbxbb@phenix-online.org
http://phenix-online.org/mailman/listinfo/cctbxbb