Forget venv and requirements.txt; use pipenv instead and you'll never have to look back again.
While unittest will serve you well for simple test suites, you'll find it short of giving you what you want after a certain limit. At this time pytest will serve you much better while still having compatibility with already existing unittest test cases. pytest also supports a plugin mechanism, allowing you to integrate many other checks(like code style, static code analysis and even type checking with python hints).
I don't think we should forget venv. At least that's the conclusion I get from stackoverflow.com/questions/415735... which documents the mess in Python's package management / "virtual envs" solutions...
Forget venv and requirements.txt; use pipenv instead and you'll never have to look back again.
While unittest will serve you well for simple test suites, you'll find it short of giving you what you want after a certain limit. At this time pytest will serve you much better while still having compatibility with already existing unittest test cases. pytest also supports a plugin mechanism, allowing you to integrate many other checks(like code style, static code analysis and even type checking with python hints).
Agree wholeheartedly on both
pipenvandpytest.I don't think we should forget venv. At least that's the conclusion I get from stackoverflow.com/questions/415735... which documents the mess in Python's package management / "virtual envs" solutions...
I don't see the referenced stackoverflow question is saying anything against pipenv.