Should instrumented tests be executable?

[beraldoleal]

This was pointed by Max Reitz:

For example, something like this:

test.py:

#!/usr/bin/python
:

Run with:

$ avocado run test.py

And now I can see that if test.py is executable, I indeed get:

...
(1/1) test.py: FAIL: Exited with status: '1', stdout: '' stderr: ' File
"/tmp/test.py", line 13\n :\n ^\nSyntaxError: invalid syntax\n' (0.06
s)

However, if test.py is not executable, I get the “Unable to resolve
reference(s) 'test.py' with plugin(s)...” error I noted above. Perhaps a
shebang line indeed doesn’t make sense without the file being executable.
OTOH, I don’t think there’s a reason for making a Python script executable
if it doesn’t contain top-level code, which is why I never did for tests.

What do you think about this?

[pevogam]

I think it is a good idea to keep the shebang only for directly invoked python scripts. OTOH one could consider avocado run as invocation of the script so this is indeed quite relative.