> holger: [...] The new way to parametrize test is meant to substitute > yield usage of test-functions aka "generative tests", also used by > nosetests. yield-style Generative tests have received criticism and > despite being the one who invented them, i mostly agree and recommend > not using them anymore.
I use `yield' to run 'sub-tests' in sequential order. For example, in this particular usecase: http://gist.github.com/115787 You'll notice I have to run test_install, test_list_all, test_import, test_remove in that *order*. It is not possible to make them methods of a class and use `pytest_generate_tests' to run them in sequential order because each of these sub-tests, besides the order, also depend on their position of execution (i.e., test_search is to be run after the statement ``c.do_update(None, None, repo_root_url)``) `yield' achieves this elegantly; I don't know how one would achieve this requirement otherwise. BTW, there is no way for me to use funcargs in yield based tests (which is why I'm calling the setup function, `prepare_client', manually). Cheers, Sridhar On 09-05-13 11:19 AM, holger krekel wrote: > Hi folks, > > for those not following my blog, here is my post > about the newstyle generative tests which are > to substitute and improve on "yield" based tests, > among other parametrization methods: > > http://tetamap.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/parametrizing > > Hope to get another py.test beta out next week that would > contain this. I am still set to finish refining and > documenting extension hooks ... the above was part of that > effort although i originally planned the "parametrizing" hook > as a post 1.0 feature. > > Anyway, let me know what you think - there is still time to do > some adjustments or changes especially to funcargs. > > cheers, > holger > _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
