gromero commented on code in PR #10865:
URL: https://github.com/apache/tvm/pull/10865#discussion_r846144276
##########
tests/python/driver/tvmc/test_command_line.py:
##########
@@ -56,3 +58,59 @@ def test_tvmc_cl_workflow(keras_simple, tmpdir_factory):
run_args = run_str.split(" ")[1:]
_main(run_args)
assert os.path.exists(output_path)
+
+
+# Test if tvmc FILE option is checked and, if invalid, is handled correctly.
Review Comment:
> I had a quick read of that `pytest` thread, I think my assumptions around
fixtures were with non-`yield` fixtures that can be invoked where-as here we
want the full fixture life cycle. Looks like there's either `pytest-cases` or
`pytest-lazy-fixture` here. `pytest-cases` is a bit more powerful and
opinionated, so I think you're right in choosing `pytest-lazy-fixture`, it's
simpler so should compose well into `tvm.testing` rather than tying us into the
style of `pytest-cases`.
Thanks for checking other possibilities. Yeah I agree, I had the same
impression about `pytest-cases`. :)
> Let's move forwards with adding `pytest-lazy-fixture` into
`ubuntu_install_python_package.sh`, and see what people think. Are you ok with
this being delayed a bit for that or do you want to merge the original, get the
package installed and refactor afterwards?
>
> CC @driazati @areusch @leandron for thoughts
@Mousius I'm totally fine with holding off this PR until we add
`pytest-lazy-fixture` to the CI images. Let's also see what folks think about
it. Thank you!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
