> a shell script that manually runs all the test cases
There's likely a better and faster way of just doing that in Python. No need to read the list and try to parse it properly in shell.
> Jenkins would be a good way to seat the scripts and their results
Yes, likely.
> if using a Python testing framework would resolve the need to maintain (NIH-style) all the scaffolding
Depends what's in the scaffolding and what do you log. Unittest framework will help you with test discovery, running and collecting results. It will not make application-specific logs easier. It may actually make it harder if by "log" you mean just printing to stdout/err.
> Would mock backends make sense here?
This doesn't really follow from previous text. You're either using mocking concept in your tests or not. If they're used and implemented locally, there are probably good reasons to move to known mocking modules. If you don't use mocking, that's a question completely different from the execution framework itself.
There's likely a better and faster way of just doing that in Python. No need to read the list and try to parse it properly in shell.
> Jenkins would be a good way to seat the scripts and their results
Yes, likely.
> if using a Python testing framework would resolve the need to maintain (NIH-style) all the scaffolding
Depends what's in the scaffolding and what do you log. Unittest framework will help you with test discovery, running and collecting results. It will not make application-specific logs easier. It may actually make it harder if by "log" you mean just printing to stdout/err.
> Would mock backends make sense here?
This doesn't really follow from previous text. You're either using mocking concept in your tests or not. If they're used and implemented locally, there are probably good reasons to move to known mocking modules. If you don't use mocking, that's a question completely different from the execution framework itself.