Yes I think I agree with that. We should now focus on new features and improvements for the Users, now that we have done enough to improve it for developers.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > "I'd like to hold off on something as large-scale as unittest2pytest until > 2.0 is out/until we no longer have to backport changes to the v1-10-* > branches." ~Ash Berlin-Taylor > > I would also prefer to focus on working on new features for Airflow 2.0 > instead of improving the developer environment. We already have a lot of > changes in the environment, and the code is more solid. Users also expect > new features so that we don't lag in comparison to other products, e.g. > Conductor, Prefetch, Dagster. > > Best regards, > Kamil > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 7:58 PM Daniel Huang <dxhu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Big yes to asserts in pytest! > > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:50 AM Michał Słowikowski < > > michal.slowikow...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > I like this idea, and such assertion looks very promising. > > > > > > assert "maximum recursion" in str(excinfo.value) > > > > > > Have a nice day! > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:16 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > It's definitely worth a try! I even mentioned this in AIP-27. But I > > think > > > > this script does not change SetUp / TearDown to an appropriate > > fixture. > > > > > > > > T. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:03 PM Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well. I think (as discussed with Kamil) maybe even convert the > tests > > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > > > How about we try: https://github.com/pytest-dev/unittest2pytest > > > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 5:48 PM Tomasz Urbaszek < > > > > > tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I agree. Should we encourage people to use asserts when adding new > > > > tests? > > > > >> > > > > >> T. > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 4:35 PM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Yup, we should. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:20 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Absolutely, and I don't think any of the concers about it in > > > run-time > > > > >>> code > > > > >>> > apply! Plus it is the way pytest recommends, and I think we get > > > nicer > > > > >>> > failure messages using assert-style too? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > -a > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > On 9 December 2019 15:06:07 GMT, Jarek Potiuk < > > > > >>> jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > >>> > >Hello everyone. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >So asserts are now banned from our main code. However with the > > > > recent > > > > >>> > >introduction of pytest we now have a chance to switch to using > > the > > > > >>> > >standard > > > > >>> > >asserts instead of deriving from TestCase class and using > > > > >>> > >assertSomething() > > > > >>> > >methods. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >I find it much more readable and nice and pytest is great in > > > > reporting > > > > >>> > >the > > > > >>> > >errors in a clear and readable way. And all the cases where > > > asserts > > > > >>> are > > > > >>> > >optimized away are not valid in this case. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >I think we should gradually switch to using asserts in our > > tests. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >WDYT? > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >More info: > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >Doc about asserts in pytest: > > > > >>> > >http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/assert.html > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >Demo of common assertion errors produced with pytest: > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/example/reportingdemo.html#tbreportdemo > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >J. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >-- > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >Jarek Potiuk > > > > >>> > >Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software > > Engineer > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > >M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > >>> > >[image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> > > > > >> Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer > > > > >> > > > > >> M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > >> E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > > > > >> > > > > >> Unique Tech > > > > >> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Tomasz Urbaszek > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Junior Software Engineer > > > > > > > > M: +48 505 628 493 <+48505628493> > > > > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com <tomasz.urbasz...@polidea.com> > > > > > > > > Unique Tech > > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Michał Słowikowski > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Test Engineer > > > > > > E: michal.slowikow...@polidea.com > > > > > > Unique Tech > > > Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> > > > > > >
