Hi Floris, On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 23:41 +0100, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > Hello Holger, > > I've started experimenting a bit more with the new resource api in > pytest-django, I haven't got very far yet but do have already some > feedback and questions. > > Firstly my main issue, I don't know how to inspect the marks on the > function/item in a function-scoped setup. Looking at the code the > only thing I could find was TestContext._resource.keywords and > TestContext._resource.applymarker(). The latter which has an explicit > comment saying it is unavailable on purpose. The former almost > exposed as TestContext.keywords but commented out. So how do you use > markers? This should probably be documented as well.
Accessing and working with markers is missing - i only briefly touched it during the implementation of the new resource API. I intend to have testcontext grow a "markers" dictionary, mapping mark names to lists of MarkInfo objects. You can currently work-around/hack using testcontext._request._pyfuncitem.obj as a reference to the underlying test function. > Secondly the docs should probably show how to do teardown in an @setup > function. I think it would be nice to show an example of scope and > teardown before going into the global resource example. Related to > this TestContext.addfinalizer() is not documented in the TestContext > API docs. Probably because autodoc doesn't pick it up. Maybe simply > merging TestContextRequest into TestContext is enough? > TestContextSetup would not need any changes to keep it's behaviour in > that case. Makes all sense i think. > Next something I have mentioned before, marking a pytest_funcarg__foo > function with @factory seems to sill give an incomprehensible error. > Personally I think it should be possible and "consume" the funcarg > just like @setup consumes e.g. setup_module(), but if I'm alone in > that a clearer error would be good improvement. Agreed, i'll see to lopok into it. > Another thing which surprised me was that @pytest.setup() needs to be > called in order to have any effect. Not calling the decorator will > simply ignore the setup function, I expected it to treat it as a > function-scoped setup. I wasn't quite sure if to mimick the current pytest.mark behaviour of allowing usage with and without "()". While trying to write a docstring for it i thought it's maybe better to allow just one way. But there definitely should be some clear error best, holger > > Regards, > Floris > _______________________________________________ > 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
