On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 16:23 -0400, Vyacheslav Rafalskiy wrote: > No problem. Here is my (real life) example. > > My functional test functions may or may not return for different > reasons (like a faulty web application or middleware). I want to > declare a fail if it takes more than so many seconds to complete. So I > write a decorator > run_with_timeout(), which will start the function in a new thread and > abandon it after timeout.
This can easily be solved by combining something like
pytest.mark('timeout') and a override to pytest_pyfunc_call using it
i suppose this could also take a look at extending the "--boxed" mode
(which forks for each test and uses subprocesses but doesn’t handle
timeouts atm.
>
> A I stated in OP, it is not that I cannot do it. I can and I do. My
> point is that it makes sense to allow decorators and should not be
> very difficult (see the example in OP).
personally i am opposed to creating new data conventions for problems
that can be solved with plain marks + a hook
usually there are 2 reasons people use to decorate tests
my opinions for implementing those are
a) add arguments + their cleanups -> funcargs please, they are made for
that
b) use more sophisticated call's -> hooks please, maybe add a bug ticket
for empowering one to return a exception-info, so stuff like
thread-wrappers can pass that more nicely for failures
*i* really think it is wrong to decorate test functions that way and
expect stuff to work
there are already plenty of mechanisms to change the behavior of pytest
test function calling in the desired way, none of those require hacks to
pass around argspecs
-- Ronny
>
> Thanks,
> Vyacheslav
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Ronny Pfannschmidt
> <ronny.pfannschm...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > can you try to explain the usecase those decorators are fulfilling,
> >
> > there may be a better integrated way using pytest.mark + setup/teardown
> > hooks
> >
> > -- Ronny
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 15:17 -0400, Vyacheslav Rafalskiy wrote:
> >> Hi Holger,
> >>
> >> I am trying to make decorators work with test functions, which depend
> >> on funcargs. As it stands, they don't.
> >> Decorated functions lose funcargs. A workaround would be to decorate
> >> an internal function like this:
> >>
> >> def test_it(funcarg_it):
> >> @decorate_it
> >> def _test_it():
> >> # test it
> >>
> >> _test_it()
> >>
> >> This works, but it is not nice. I'd rather wrote a decorator like
> >>
> >> def decorate_it(f):
> >> def _wrap_it(*args, **kwargs):
> >> # wrap f() here
> >>
> >> _wrap_it._varnames = _pytest.core.varnames(f)
> >> return _wrap_it
> >>
> >> and apply it straight to the test function.
> >>
> >> After examining the source code I even expected it to just work
> >> (magically of course) but it didn't.
> >> Do you think it is worthwhile? If so I can enter a feature request.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Vyacheslav
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> py-dev mailing list
> >> py-dev@codespeak.net
> >> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
> >
> >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
