I finally released a new version of twill, the Web scripting & testing language. This one is pretty solid, as far as I can tell; relatively few bug reports over a 2 month period. Between now and the (fairly distant) 0.9 beta release, I expect to make a number of changes to the underlying implementation, but I think the API and command-line usage is pretty stable.
In other twill news, I've moved the twill Web site to twill.idyll.org, and created a Trac site at twill.idyll.org/trac/. Check out the twill 0.9 milestone! The Trac site is intended for Wiki info, tickets, and milestones related to not only twill but also scotch and wsgi_intercept. It's not linked into the source code for the three projects because they're all in separate darcs repositories.
Let them eat Kwalitee!
I'm a fan of Grig's Cheesecake project, not least because we're both SoCal Piggies. The project is one that aims to provide a single score representing how well a Python project is packaged. He's gotten some interestingly negative comments about the project as part of the Google SoC wrangling, and I feel obliged to comment on them.
The two comments that I disagree with the most are these: first, that this will lead to an era of pseudo-fascism on PyPi, with people 'endlessly tweaking' their Python package to get a better Cheesecake score; and second, that unit testing is not applicable to a fairly large subset of the projects out there.
In response to the first comment: I just don't see it happening. I do expect many projects to work a bit to providie a README, a working setup.py, and the various other files. Perhaps they'll even toss in some unit tests. That's all to the good; right now I'm not aware of a single place that documents what should go in a Python package, and if you install a lot of Python software you probably believe that there should be. (Grig?) Nonetheless, just the act of attaching a score to a package isn't going to make people devote an excessive amount of time to raising that score. Perhaps if Grig was giving out ice cream to the top 10 percent of the scores -- but he's not.
In response to the second comment, there's a widespread misunderstanding about unit tests that seems to crop up when people first implement them. Unit tests are not about anything external to your code. They're all about making sure that your code works, and that your
code stays working. As soon as you start talking about unit testing graphics, or video, or the Web, or your database API, you're actually shifting to discuss what are known as "functional" or "integration" tests. These can run in a unit test framework, but they are not "unit tests". (If you think I'm trying to redefine "unit test", go read Kent Beck's original writings on this stuff.) So in practice all code is unit testable, and I'd be willing to be that over 95% of the packages that exist could have useful unit tests.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents -- exactly what my opinion is worth ;).
richdawe mentions an SMTP shell (e.g. twill with an SMTP extension ;), and
then there's TestableEmailer. Cool stuff.
cinamod, sounds like you're having too much fun. Let me know if you show up in LA sometime and want to check out the pickup scene here.