HI, i also like apply_params, it well in place with my desire of a more complete rename instead of just cutting it short.
+1 for eternal old api's i would like to introduce a warning which is per default filtered (like a future-warning), simply so plugin authors can have a advised way of keeping up with core even if we keep some old things in place for users -- Ronny 2018-01-31 10:42 GMT+01:00 holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu>: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 22:22 -0800, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > holger krekel <hol...@merlinux.eu> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 19:08 -0800, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > >> Bruno Oliveira <nicodde...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> > A PR has been submitted which adds `parameterize` as an alias to > > >> > `parametrize`. Florian Bruhin and I are not very keen to the idea > given > > >> > that there is an explicit warning for it already and having > different names > > >> > to the same thing reduces consistency across test suites. > > >> > > >> So I've recently finished a (toy) plugin which I've been intending to > > >> release as pytest-parawtf. It's currently in the legal machine of my > > >> employer for me to hopefully be able to release unrestricted. You can > > >> probably guess what it does from the name, but it basically allows a > few > > >> misspellings in all locations. I actually considered allowing > anything > > >> matching the ``param*`` wildcard but thought while fun it would > probably > > >> stop people from using it. > > >> > > >> However the serious note in that plugin is that I think it makes sense > > >> to use ``params``. My reasoning is that it's easy to spell and > already > > >> used for fixtures: ``@pytest.fixture(params=[0, 1])``. So why not > > >> everywhere else: ``@pytest.mark.params('a', [0, 1])``, > > >> ``metafunc.params(...)``. So to be honest I think we should migrate > to > > >> that and still disallow the other variants. It would mean I don't get > > >> to release my fun plugin but whatever. > > > > > > i initially meant to write my skepticism wrt to going the > > > "alternative spellings" route but FWIW i do like "params" as it also > matches > > > accessing a parameter via "request.param" inside fixture functions. For > > > ``metafunc.X`` i rather expect X to be a verb, however. /me fiddles > with > > > the parameters of what he supposes is a time-machine ... > > > > > > That being said i don't like the idea of making tons of existing code > > > throw warnings, let alone having "pytest.mark.parametrize" erroring out > > > in future pytest versions. I guess i am aware of too many existing code > > > bases (and written and printed tutorials and books) which would > > > suffer. Independently from the question at hand I recommend to be > > > careful with the notion of "people can just rename their code". > > > > For metafunc having a verb sort of makes sense. But also the > > consistency argument is strong. You could try to go the .apply_params() > > or something similar route I guess but not sure I'd prefer this over the > > bare .params(). > > I like metafunc.apply_params(). > > > Also, I don't think there is any reason to start issuing warnings for > > something like this. We can and should support parametrize for eternity > > without ever issuing warnings or anything like that. Only a note in the > > documentation to suggest one may prefer to use the params variant in new > > code if one doesn't feel strongly themselves. Alternatively we could > > leave it as a plugin and refer to that in the docs. If it proves > > popular (not sure how you can know that these days, but anyway) then it > > could still be merged into the core at some point. > > For past renamings we simply changed the docs to use the preferred version > and maybe added a note about the old spelling. For example, before > ``metafunc.parametrize`` was introduced ~6y ago pytest docs advertised > ``metafunc.addcall`` which still works today. It was finally deprecated > in pytest-3.3 and its removal will probably still break existing code. > However, here keeping backward-compat compatibility complicates the > intricate parametrization/fixture interaction implementation. Therefore > I guess it's warranted to remove it eventually because it relaxes > refactoring > constraints. By comparison, renaming parametrize() to apply_params() is > a trivial thing to support in a backward compatible way (``parametrize = > apply_params``). > > IMHO the new spelling should be part of core proper and could even come > with a 3.5 (or 3.6 ...) because it doesn't break anything. > > holger > > > On that last thing there is one caveat, hinted at by Brian. The plugin > > does not play nice. I don't have the code with me as I'm traveling but > > IIRC it uses at least one underscored method/attribute and even > > everything else it does is outright horrible and can't be reasonably > > considered part of the public pytest API. > > > > Cheers, > > Floris > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > email@example.com > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev