TST: parameterize more tests #45131
TST: parameterize more tests #45131
Conversation
mroeschke
commented
Dec 30, 2021
mroeschke
commented
- tests added / passed
- Ensure all linting tests pass, see here for how to run them
mroeschke
added
the
Testing
|
@jbrockmendel if you can have a quick glance here |
| @@ -1810,55 +1810,50 @@ def test_dt64ser_sub_datetime_dtype(self): | |||
| # TODO: This next block of tests came from tests.series.test_operators, | |||
| # needs to be de-duplicated and parametrized over `box` classes | |||
|
|
|||
| def test_operators_datetimelike_invalid(self, all_arithmetic_operators): | |||
| # these are all TypeEror ops | |||
| @pytest.mark.parametrize( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dont think this improves the clarity of this test. id suggest something like:
def test_whatever(all_arithmetic_operators):
op_str = all_arithmetic_operators
if op_str in [add, sub, radd, rsub]:
return # or skip, or use a different fixture; these are tested elsewhere
tdser = [timedelta(minutes=5, seconds=3), NaT, timedelta(minutes=5, seconds=3)]
dt64ser = [Timestamp("20111230"), Timestamp("20120101"), NaT]
dt64tz_ser = ...
for iter_over_pairs([tdser, dt64ser, dt64tz_ser]):
with pytest.raises...
op(whatever)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm at least with this version an error with any of the dtlike-ser won't prevent the other dtlike-ser from being tested due to the parameterize
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair enough. I might be overly-wary of over-parametrizing in the arithmetic tests since there's a ton of them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hopefully with a second pass we can remove the need for this test entirely.
|
comments on a few, the rest look good |
| @@ -58,6 +58,17 @@ def adjust_negative_zero(zero, expected): | |||
| return expected | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| def compare_op(series, other, op): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
something like this you might want o make a first class assert_* function (but ok for now)
