On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg > <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > should we try to set FutureWarnings to errors in dev tests? I am > > seriously annoyed by FutureWarnings getting lost all over for two > > reasons. First, it is hard to impossible to find even our own > > errors > > for our own FutureWarning changes. Secondly, we currently would not > > even see any Futurewarnings from someone else. For numpy that may > > not > > be a big issue, but still. > > Yeah, I noticed this recently too :-(. Definitely it is the right > thing to do, I think. And this is actually more true the more > annoying > it is, because if we're triggering lots of FutureWarnings then we > should fix that :-). >
Yeah, the problem is that some FutureWarnings that are given in the dozens. Injecting the filter on the module level is possible, but not quite correct. Maybe one could do evil things similar to a "module decorator" to add the warning context + filter to every single function in a module starting with "test_". Another method could be to abuse `__warningregistry__`, but there are at least two reasons why this is probably not viable (nevermind that it would be ugly as well). Doesn't nose maybe provide *something*? I mean seriously, testing warnings tends to be hell broke lose? Change one thing, suddenly dozens appear from nowhere, never sure you found all cases, etc. - Sebastian > -n >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
