Skip to content

Make test parametrization override indirect fixtures #3629

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 29, 2018

Conversation

sermoz
Copy link
Contributor

@sermoz sermoz commented Jun 28, 2018

A fix for #2220.

nicoddemus and others added 3 commits June 27, 2018 08:28
We don't deploy anything on tags with AppVeyor, we use Travis instead, so we
might as well save resources
working_set.update(self.name2fixturedefs[argname][-1].argnames)

self.names_closure[:] = sorted(
closure, key=lambda name: self.names_closure.index(name)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the key could just be self.names_closure.index

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

since this one corrects a rather strange misbehavior, i wonder if its better to target the feature branch just to avoid certain kinds of disruption in a patch release

CC @nicoddemus

Copy link
Member

@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice addition, do the type definitions do any good wrt tooling?

i believe this is good to go after we decide the target branch/disruption and add a changelog entry

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 28, 2018

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.06%) to 92.661% when pulling 76ac670 on egnartsms:issue-2220-param-breaks-dep into 7b47dfb on pytest-dev:features.

@sermoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

sermoz commented Jun 28, 2018

@RonnyPfannschmidt I added those type definitions as a form of documentation, just to make it clear what the fields of FuncFixtureInfo are. Not sure what you mean by tooling.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

since this one corrects a rather strange misbehavior, i wonder if its better to target the feature branch just to avoid certain kinds of disruption in a patch release

I haven't had a chance to review the PR yet, but I agree that even if this changes a somewhat wrong behavior, we better be safe and add this to the next feature release.

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@egnartsms aka mypy or something like that (because if its only acting as comments i consider it a liability)

@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt changed the base branch from master to features June 28, 2018 15:26
@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt changed the base branch from features to master June 28, 2018 15:26
@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

we will have to do our own homework first and merge master to features before this one can apply as intended

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

#3634 will sort the conflict out then i will try again,

@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt changed the base branch from master to features June 28, 2018 17:10
@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@egnartsms oh, i missed it before, can you please add a news fragment about the bugfix

once thats complete its good to merge 👍

@sermoz
Copy link
Contributor Author

sermoz commented Jun 28, 2018

@RonnyPfannschmidt do you mean to create a file in the changelog directory? Or something else? That's my first contribution to pytest.

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@edisongustavo correct a file in the changelog directory

Copy link
Member

@nicoddemus nicoddemus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excellent work @egnartsms, thanks a lot!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants