Hi Brianna,
I am not using mark.parametrize as much as you do and usually
in simpler scenarios. Here are some comments nevertheless.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:16 +1000, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has ideas about 'nicer' ways to specify IDs for
> tests when using the parametrize mark.
>
> Example:
>
> my parametrize might look like this:
>
> @py.test.mark.parametrize(('wx', 'expectedCoverage', 'expectedTrend'), [
> (['ra2', 'ra2', 'ra4', 'ra4'], 'Isol', None),
> (['sh2', 'sh2', 'sh4', 'sh4'], 'Isol', 'increasing'),
> (['ts2', 'ts2', 'ts4', 'ts4'], 'Isol', None),
> (['ra2', 'ra2', 'ra2', None], 'Isol', None),
> (['sh2', 'sh2', 'sh2', None], 'Isol', 'clearing'),
> (['ts2', 'ts2', 'ts2', None], 'Isol', None),
> ([None, None, 'ra2', 'ra2'], 'Isol', None),
> ([None, None, 'sh2', 'sh2'], 'Isol', 'developing'),
> ([None, None, 'ts2', 'ts2'], 'Isol', None),
> ])
>
> which results in IDs like this:
>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.30-Isol-increasing]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.33-Isol-.35]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.36-Isol-.38]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.39-Isol-clearing]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.42-Isol-.44]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.45-Isol-.47]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.48-Isol-developing]'>
> <Function 'test_noTrendsStartingWithChc[.51-Isol-.53]'>
>
> I can add IDs (I just learned last week! :)) like this:
>
> @py.test.mark.parametrize(('wx', 'expectedCoverage', 'expectedTrend'), [
> (['ra2', 'ra2', 'ra4', 'ra4'], 'Isol', None),
> (['sh2', 'sh2', 'sh4', 'sh4'], 'Isol', 'increasing'),
> (['ts2', 'ts2', 'ts4', 'ts4'], 'Isol', None),
> (['ra2', 'ra2', 'ra2', None], 'Isol', None),
> (['sh2', 'sh2', 'sh2', None], 'Isol', 'clearing'),
> (['ts2', 'ts2', 'ts2', None], 'Isol', None),
> ([None, None, 'ra2', 'ra2'], 'Isol', None),
> ([None, None, 'sh2', 'sh2'], 'Isol', 'developing'),
> ([None, None, 'ts2', 'ts2'], 'Isol', None),
> ], ids=['IsolRA increasing',
> 'IsolSH increasing',
> 'IsolTS increasing',
> 'IsolRA clearing',
> 'IsolSH clearing',
> 'IsolTS clearing',
> 'IsolRA developing',
> 'IsolSH developing',
> 'IsolTS developing',
> ])
>
> but there are a couple of things I don't like about this:
> * takes a lot of lines
> * ID is separate from the test data, bad for maintenance, if the test data
> gets changed the test name could easily be overlooked when it should be
> updated too
agreed. One a sidenote, yesterday i introduced a briefer way to
specify argument names. Your example would start like this:
@pytest.mark.parametrize("wx,expectedCoverage,expectedTrend", ...)
and you can also have spaces after the commas if you prefer.
> What I would really like is if a string in the tuples could represent the
> name. Maybe there could be a "magic" fieldname (id, testid, _pytestid ?)
> that could be stripped out from the data and used as the id.
>
> e.g.
>
> @py.test.mark.parametrize(('id', 'wx', 'expectedCoverage',
> 'expectedTrend'), [
> ('ChcRA increasing', ['ra1', 'ra1', 'ra4', 'ra4'], 'Wide', None),
> ('ChcSH increasing', ['sh1', 'sh1', 'sh4', 'sh4'], 'Wide', None),
> ('ChcTS increasing', ['ts1', 'ts1', 'ts4', 'ts4'], 'Wide', None),
> ])
> def test_noTrendsStartingWithChc(wx, expectedCoverage, expectedTrend):
> # blah
>
> This would be really nice.
Looks better, maybe the special id name should then be spelled "__id" or so
to make it more obvious it's not just an argument name.
> Another alternative could be if you could specify a function that would
> take the test data and form a string for the test id from it. An example
> here might be
>
>
> @py.test.mark.parametrize(('wx', 'expectedCoverage', 'expectedTrend'), [
> (['ra1', 'ra1', 'ra4', 'ra4'], 'Wide', None),
> (['sh1', 'sh1', 'sh4', 'sh4'], 'Wide', None),
> (['ts1', 'ts1', 'ts4', 'ts4'], 'Wide', None),
> ], idFn=lambda (wx, cov, trend): '{!s}{} {!s}'.format(wx[0], cov, trend))
>
> However this is quite a bit more messy, and not as flexible as specifying
> your own string.
Messyness depends, i'd say. If you have multiple test functions you
could aim to re-use the same id-generating function and could then be sure
that the IDs are always correctly denoting the parametrizted data.
> I would be interested to hear what people think about this, as well as if
> there are other ways of specifying ids that I have overlooked. (I know I
> could lay out the data the way I want and use pytest_generate_tests to
> slice it up for metafunc.parametrize, but I actually prefer explicitly
> writing out each test case as it tends to be a lot simpler for other
> developers and future-me to grok.)
I'd recommend to write a wrapper "@myparametrize" which generates a
pytest.mark.parametrize() instance in the end. This way you could use
and consolidate your API ideas in real life with today's pytest in real
life before aiming for pytest inclusion.
best,
holger
>
> thanks,
> Brianna
>
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Pytest-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
_______________________________________________
Pytest-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
