I concur that `pytest` feels "easier" / more natural to use (obviously a subjective point). It certainly is more actively being developed and offers more features through the numerous available plugins. For ROS 2 we are using `pytest` over `nose` for a while for these reasons.
The new build tool [colcon](
http://colcon.readthedocs.io) also invokes Python tests with `pytest`. Since `pytest` is capable of running tests written for `nose` this is usually compatible with exiting tests.
There are three parts to Python unit testing to consider:
* the API used to write unit tests
* the tool used to perform the testing of a package
* the tool used by `rostest` internally
I think the three parts are fairly independent from each other. E.g. using `colcon` you can run the tests of a ROS package with `pytest` even though they use `nose` / `unittest` API.
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/pytest-support-for-ros-rostest/4990/6) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>
(text/plain)