On 23 April 2013 17:27, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Brianna,
>
> first off a request to you :)
>
> You filed https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/pytest/issue/279/ and Floris
> improved assertion reporting accordingly. Could you provide testing
> and feedback?
>
I will definitely do that, it escaped my attention somehow!
I guess this is possible. I'd probably prefer something like:
>
@py.test.mark.parametrize(('duration', 'expectedBrackets'), [
> pytest.mark.xfail((7, [None, None, None, 7])),
> pytest.mark.xfail((19, [None, 7, 6, 6])),
> (24, [6, 6, 6, 6]),
> (23, [6, 6, 6, 6]),
> (25, [6, 6, 6, 6]),
>
> and is a bit easier to switch between xfail and not. If you like
> that as well please open an issue and at best try to come up with
> a patch :)
>
That is fine by me, I will try to see what I can do. :)
>
> > Also while I'm at it, it could be good for pytest to issue a warning if
> > someone uses a mark called parameterize, parametrise or parameterise,
> > because I've been caught pondering why a mark wasn't working properly at
> > least once :)
>
> Did you try running with "py.test --strict" (which you can make a general
> default through "addopts" in a pytest config file)? It bails out if you
> use non-registered markers.
>
We don't use registered markers (partly because we use marks to refer to
bug tracker items), so that wouldn't help. But it occurs to me there would
be a hook somewhere where I could inspect the marks and raise some kind of
alert for myself, don't need pytest to do it. I will look into that. :)
thanks!
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
_______________________________________________
Pytest-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
