On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Sebastian Berg <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Do, 2016-01-21 at 16:15 -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Sebastian Berg >> <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > should we try to set FutureWarnings to errors in dev tests? I am >> > seriously annoyed by FutureWarnings getting lost all over for two >> > reasons. First, it is hard to impossible to find even our own >> > errors >> > for our own FutureWarning changes. Secondly, we currently would not >> > even see any Futurewarnings from someone else. For numpy that may >> > not >> > be a big issue, but still. >> >> Yeah, I noticed this recently too :-(. Definitely it is the right >> thing to do, I think. And this is actually more true the more >> annoying >> it is, because if we're triggering lots of FutureWarnings then we >> should fix that :-). >> > > Yeah, the problem is that some FutureWarnings that are given in the > dozens. Injecting the filter on the module level is possible, but not > quite correct. Maybe one could do evil things similar to a "module > decorator" to add the warning context + filter to every single function > in a module starting with "test_".
Can we remove the FutureWarnings by making whatever change they're warning about? :-) > Another method could be to abuse `__warningregistry__`, but there are > at least two reasons why this is probably not viable (nevermind that it > would be ugly as well). > > Doesn't nose maybe provide *something*? I mean seriously, testing > warnings tends to be hell broke lose? Change one thing, suddenly dozens > appear from nowhere, never sure you found all cases, etc. AFAICT nose doesn't provide much of anything for working with warnings. :-/ -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion