Fully Agree ! I will do it then if no-one objects! On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:39 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote:
> I agree that global implementation of asserts should happen after 2.0. But > in the meantime it seems reasonable to decided on using asserts in the > future and enforce that all new, not-conflicting tests should be written in > pytest way, thus eliminating number of future changes. > > Also, after discussion with Kamil I think it would be good to describe the > agreed approach in TESTING.md. > > T. > > On 2019/12/18 16:04:30, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > but I'm not > > > sure which option is the best. Should we use pytest or unittest method? > > > > > > > Yeah. This is the question that started the whole thread. So far only > > enthusiastic "yes" for the pythonic "asserts" as far as I can see. > > > > Anyone has some preference for the unittest ones ? > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes I think I agree with that. We should now focus on new features > and > > > > improvements for the Users, now that we have done enough to improve > it > > > for > > > > developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kamil Breguła < > kamil.breg...@polidea.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I'd like to hold off on something as large-scale as > unittest2pytest > > > > until > > > > > 2.0 is out/until we no longer have to backport changes to the > v1-10-* > > > > > branches." ~Ash Berlin-Taylor > > > > > > > > > > I would also prefer to focus on working on new features for > Airflow 2.0 > > > > > instead of improving the developer environment. We already have a > lot > > > of > > > > > changes in the environment, and the code is more solid. Users also > > > > expect > > > > > new features so that we don't lag in comparison to other products, > e.g. > > > > > Conductor, Prefetch, Dagster. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Kamil > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:58 PM Daniel Huang <dxhu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Big yes to asserts in pytest! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:50 AM Michał Słowikowski < > > > > > > michal.slowikow...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like this idea, and such assertion looks very promising. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assert "maximum recursion" in str(excinfo.value) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have a nice day! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:16 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > > > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's definitely worth a try! I even mentioned this in AIP-27. > > > But I > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > this script does not change SetUp / TearDown to an > appropriate > > > > > > fixture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:03 PM Jarek Potiuk < > > > > > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well. I think (as discussed with Kamil) maybe even convert > the > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about we try: > > > https://github.com/pytest-dev/unittest2pytest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 5:48 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > > > > > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I agree. Should we encourage people to use asserts when > adding > > > > new > > > > > > > > tests? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> T. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:35 PM Kaxil Naik < > > > kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Yup, we should. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > > > > a...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > Absolutely, and I don't think any of the concers about > it > > > in > > > > > > > run-time > > > > > > > > >>> code > > > > > > > > >>> > apply! Plus it is the way pytest recommends, and I > think we > > > > get > > > > > > > nicer > > > > > > > > >>> > failure messages using assert-style too? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > -a > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > On 9 December 2019 15:06:07 GMT, Jarek Potiuk < > > > > > > > > >>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > >Hello everyone. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >So asserts are now banned from our main code. However > with > > > > the > > > > > > > > recent > > > > > > > > >>> > >introduction of pytest we now have a chance to switch > to > > > > using > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > >>> > >standard > > > > > > > > >>> > >asserts instead of deriving from TestCase class and > using > > > > > > > > >>> > >assertSomething() > > > > > > > > >>> > >methods. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >I find it much more readable and nice and pytest is > great > > > in > > > > > > > > reporting > > > > > > > > >>> > >the > > > > > > > > >>> > >errors in a clear and readable way. And all the cases > > > where > > > > > > > asserts > > > > > > > > >>> are > > > > > > > > >>> > >optimized away are not valid in this case. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >I think we should gradually switch to using asserts > in our > > > > > > tests. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >WDYT? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >More info: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >Doc about asserts in pytest: > > > > > > > > >>> > >http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/assert.html > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >Demo of common assertion errors produced with pytest: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/example/reportingdemo.html#tbreportdemo > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >J. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >-- > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > > > >>> > >Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal > Software > > > > > > Engineer > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > > > > >>> > >[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > > > > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software > Engineer > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > > > > > >> E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com < > tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Unique Tech > > > > > > > > >> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > > Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software > Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > > > > > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech > > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michał Słowikowski > > > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Test Engineer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > E: michal.slowikow...@polidea.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unique Tech > > > > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
