i noticed that there is no way to name items in those lists On 06/27/2012 06:15 PM, holger krekel wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:43 -0600, Carl Meyer wrote: >> I like it! In particular the parametrization support by passing a list >> is a quite intuitive extension of the API. >> >> "atnode" seems like an opaque arg name - what's wrong with "scope"? The >> latter name seems more intuitive to me. Would this arg have a default value? > > "scope" makes sense - it's just that in the current API scope is a > "class", "module", ... string. Existing users might easily get a bit of > type clash - especially if you have a mixed funcarg/resource scenario. > Maybe "scopenode"? > > The default scopenode would be the one on which you are calling > "register_factory". So in the first documented example call: > > session.register_factory("db", createdb, scopenode=session) > > the "scopenode" call would actually be superfluous. (Sidenote: the session > object is also a node - the root node from which all collection and item > nodes are descendants. Each node has a ".session" reference back to this > root node). > >> In the long run, if funcarg-style is considered a useful shortcut and >> will not be deprecated, it would be nice if there were a bit more naming >> and API consistency between funcarg-style and new-style resource >> handling -- it would make them feel more aspects of one system rather >> than two different systems. I think this would really just require >> switching from pytest_funcarg__foo to pytest_resource__foo, renaming >> cached_setup to register_factory (and having it use the same API), and >> renaming getfuncargvalue to getresource. Of course I don't know whether >> this consistency is really worth the backwards-compatibility/deprecation >> hassles. > > * getresource/getfuncargvalue: makes sense to me to go for advertising and > documenting getresource() instead of getfuncargvalue() and keeping > the latter as an alias with or without deprecation. > > * addfinalizer would remain unmodified - it's just that the "request" > object passed to funcarg-factories adds finalizers with test function > invocation scope, whereas node.addfinalizer() does it for the respective > node scope (so e.g. called from a Class node it would register a per-class > finalizer) > > * cached_setup: i hope that we do not need to offer this method anymore > other than for compatibility. It's internal caching-key is not easy > to explain and more than once users have stumbled about understanding it. > cached_setup is required as long as pytest_funcarg__ factories are called > _each_ time a resource is requested. (By contrast the new getresource() > only triggers a factory call once for the registered scope - thus > the factory implementation itself does not need to care for caching). > > Note that register_factory is a different beast than cached_setup: > it does not create a value, just registers a factory. So i don't see > how we can unify this. > > As to a possible resource-factory auto-discovery, i can imagine it to > work with introducing a marker:: > > # example content in a test module or in a conftest.py file > > @pytest.mark.resourcefactory("db", scope=pytest.Class) > def myfactory(name, node): > # factory called once per each requesting class (methods > # on this class will share the returned value) > > this declaration would trigger a register_factory("db", myfactory) call. > If we want to extend this to parametrization (multiple db factories) > we probably need something like this:: > > @pytest.mark.resourcefactory("db", scope=pytest.Class, multi=True) > def make_db_factories(name, node): > factoryfuncs = [compute list of factory funcs] > return factoryfuncs > > This would be called at collection time and the scope and the number > of to-be-created values would be known in advance. It's basically > equivalent to a classnode.register_factory([list of factory funcs]) call. > (we could auto-magically recognize yield-generating functions but i'd > like to avoid it). > > To go the full circle, the signature of factory functions could rather > accept a "request" object instead of (name, node). Actually today, a > request object has this internal state anyway. pytest_funcarg__ would thus > only look slighly special in that it skips the marker and has a fixed scope > of "pytest.Function". > > Hope this thought train makes some sense :) > holger > _______________________________________________ > py-dev mailing list > py-dev@codespeak.net > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev
_______________________________________________ py-dev mailing list py-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/py-dev