On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 20:03 +0000, holger krekel wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 19:47 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > On 2 August 2012 18:24, holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 13:50 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > >> Would it not make sense to allow this (or at least provide a clearer > > >> error)? I still like that form because of the grep-ability (doing a > > >> 2-line grep is much harder and would still not cover ppl doing "from > > >> pytest import factory" etc). > > > > > > Grepability is an argument. Would adding a "name=..." parameter for > > > the factory-decorator help enough? Allowing and advertising > > > pytest_funcarg__foo feels strange to somehow taking a fresh look i think. > > > > I would argue the opposite, allowing the @factory decroator on > > pytest_funcarg__* seems like a more gentle progression giving more the > > impression that it is simply funcargs evolved. To a newcomer it might > > otherwise look like funcargs where not thought out fully yet and make > > them think py.test just isn't stable enough yet. > > But when using the factory decorator on pytest_funcarg__ named functions, > they shall at least not be able to receive "request" anymore, right? > (The current implementation probably allows it but i feel uneasy about it).
One more thought: What will actually happen if you grep for "def FUNCARGNAME" - does this not usually yield the location of your factory and very few or no false positives? holger _______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev