Avoiding looking upwards for parameter argnames when generating fixtu…

[Sup3rGeo]

…reinfo.

Closes #5036

Basically even though there is code to check if a fixture is a parameter name:

pytest/src/_pytest/fixtures.py

Lines 1218 to 1231 in 6a43c8c

	if fixturedef.params is not None:
	markers = list(metafunc.definition.iter_markers("parametrize"))
	for parametrize_mark in markers:
	if "argnames" in parametrize_mark.kwargs:
	argnames = parametrize_mark.kwargs["argnames"]
	else:
	argnames = parametrize_mark.args[0]
	if not isinstance(argnames, (tuple, list)):
	argnames = [
	x.strip() for x in argnames.split(",") if x.strip()
	]
	if argname in argnames:
	break

The problem is that any other higher level dependant fixtures would also be included in the
metafunc.fixturenames for the function, and because of course the name of this higher fixture does not match the parametrization parameter, the function would be erroneously additionally parametrized.

///

• Create a new changelog file in the changelog folder, with a name like <ISSUE NUMBER>.<TYPE>.rst. See changelog/README.rst for details.
• Target the master branch for bug fixes, documentation updates and trivial changes.
• Target the features branch for new features and removals/deprecations.
• Include documentation when adding new features.
• Include new tests or update existing tests when applicable.

Unless your change is trivial or a small documentation fix (e.g., a typo or reword of a small section) please:

• Add yourself to AUTHORS in alphabetical order;

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #5254 into master will increase coverage by 1.99%.
The diff coverage is 69.56%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5254      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.21%   93.21%   +1.99%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines       26282    26303      +21     
  Branches     2589     2592       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits        23974    24519     +545     
+ Misses       1983     1462     -521     
+ Partials      325      322       -3

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/_pytest/fixtures.py	95.65% <100%> (-2.28%)	⬇️
src/_pytest/mark/structures.py	92.65% <100%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
testing/python/fixtures.py	77.75% <12.5%> (-20.76%)	⬇️
testing/logging/test_reporting.py	20.99% <0%> (-79.01%)	⬇️
testing/examples/test_issue519.py	33.33% <0%> (-66.67%)	⬇️
testing/python/show_fixtures_per_test.py	41.17% <0%> (-58.83%)	⬇️
testing/test_warnings.py	55.19% <0%> (-40.44%)	⬇️
src/_pytest/logging.py	85.38% <0%> (-9.64%)	⬇️
testing/logging/test_fixture.py	93.1% <0%> (-6.9%)	⬇️
... and 24 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 654d8da...65bd1b8. Read the comment docs.

[Sup3rGeo]

Basically the two failing tests are problems with the CI themselves it seems.

Anyways, I think this is functional enough so someone can just review it?

[Sup3rGeo]

Closing and reopening to trigger CI

[nicoddemus]

Excellent work @Sup3rGeo, really sorry about the delay on this. 👍

Please take a look at my suggestions and let me know what you think.

[nicoddemus]

Also please squash your commits and rebase on master. 😁

[blueyed]

Thanks for this!
It is still not squashed though..

[blueyed]

(wouldn't be a problem if we could do it from the UI (#4361))

[nicoddemus]

@Sup3rGeo would you mind squashing/rebasing one last time? Feel free to merge it yourself once CI is green again. 😁

[Sup3rGeo]

Sure! I was waiting to do this the very last thing, after checking if CI passed, which it did so I will do it now

[blueyed]

Looks like you've rebased it on features?

[nicoddemus]

Looks like it. Problem is that now all commits have been rewritten 😬

[blueyed]

Well, it should go to master, no?
Should be just rebased again properly then.
Or do you mean to have it in features instead?

(wouldn't be a problem if we could do it from the UI (#4361)) - so maybe @asottile / @RonnyPfannschmidt should take over.. ;)

[Sup3rGeo]

Hahaha sorry guys looks like I screwed big time, thanks @asottile for fixing it up.

[Sup3rGeo]

Found a mistake in a test, I will commit the fix and squash (properly this time)

[Sup3rGeo]

Ok hope I did right this time (sorry for this mess). If no one objects, I will do as @nicoddemus said and merge this if CI becomes green.

[nicoddemus]

Looks good! Please go ahead with the merge once it's green. 👍