On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 20:49 +0000, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > On 8 December 2013 09:40, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:26 PM, holger krekel <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Well, ok. Pending further input, i made pytest accept pytest.fixture > >> >> decorated pytest_funcarg__ prefixed functions, see > >> >> > >> >> https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/pytest/commits/aa1f0505a3156b9feca43cd67c5afc95622b9ac5 > >> > >> I don't really like this change. IIRC this was considered when the > >> decorator was introduced and the reason it was not allowed originally > >> is because the signature is different between the different ways of > >> defining fixtures. That can be very confusing too. > > > > Not sure i follow. What is different? The only difference is that > > the decorator allows to specify a caching scope, params etc. It does > > not change anything about the fixture functions own signature. > > I was assuming the old fixtures do not allow requesting other fixtures > via funcargs. But I might well be wrong on that.
Indeed, old pytest_funcarg__fixture already accepted other fixtures as arguments, so no difference there. However, i now think and agree that adding @pytest.fixture markers to old-style pytest_funcarg__NAME fixtures is a bit backwards. Going for a pylint plugin probably makes more sense. So i just backed out the change (so now you cannot use @pytest.fixture on pytest_funcarg__NAME). best, holger > > Regards, > Floris > > > -- > Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom > www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org > _______________________________________________ Pytest-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
