Hey Ronny,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:55 AM Ronny Pfannschmidt <
opensou...@ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote:
> b) Another suggestion from Ronny: running collection and getting used
> marker names. I'm not entirely sure what this means exactly, since the
> original proposal doesn't use "names" at all, only the objects directly.
>
> in my proposal the "name" of a marker would be either the current string
> or a type
>
I'm still not getting how that fits with the collection of *tests*...
consider this module:
# contents of test_foo.py
from pytest_blocker import Blocker
@Blocker(123)
def test_foo():
pass
How does pytest know that the file "test_foo" uses "Blocker", and that
"Blocker" is a marker? One possible solution would be to inspect the
namespace and see if any of the objects are a pytest.Mark subclass. I'm not
suggesting that, just trying to illustrate what I mean by my question.
another important part of my proposal is, that i want to decouple from the
> namespace we put into pytest.mark,
> after all there is now a multitude of plugins that register certain
> markers, sometimes for *different* usages and incompatible signatures
>
That's the "flat namespaces" part of the discussion, if I'm understanding
your proposal correctly. :)
> IMHO the discussion by email at this point is a little hard to digest and
> to track all points/replies/proposals. Perhaps we should move this
> discussion to a different venue? I propose an issue on GitHub because the
> main issue containing the proposal can be updated as the discussion
> progresses, although I'm not sure if it would be any easier to track the
> discussion itself. Perhaps using the Wiki would also be possible?
>
> i could make a wiki page
>
I would like to see what others think first. People might be OK with the
current format, or have other suggestions.
Cheers
Bruno.
_______________________________________________
pytest-dev mailing list
pytest-dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
