On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:57 +1100, Brianna Laugher wrote: > I don't mind losing the IDs constructed from values, assuming it will still > be possible to specify IDs if using metafunc.addcall. But if we are going > to lose the IDs from values then they should probably just be plain > integers (as happens when using metafunc.addall without specifying id) - > having names like test_some[arg0-arg1-arg2], test_some[arg3-arg4-arg5] etc > is totally pointless.
Including the argnames gives more context, no? Something like test_some[0-1-2] gives less. More importantly, selecting a specifically parametrized test works with "py.test -k arg0" whereas "py.test -k 1" would not work, i am afraid. best, holger > thanks > Brianna > > > > On 21 October 2013 23:12, holger krekel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Brianna, all, > > > > I am thinking about constructing ids for parametrized tests using > > argname/valindex, i.e. not use the actual parametrization > > values. The latter causes some problems (among them also issue357) > > and generally doesn't allow to distinguish the two tests in: > > > > @pytest.mark.parametrize("arg", [1,1]) > > def test_some(arg): > > pass > > > > Currently this gives two identical test ids "test_some[1]". > > With the new scheme this gives: > > > > test_some[arg0] > > test_some[arg1] > > > > Such a scheme would guarantee unique IDs. The scheme is already > > used for user instances. > > > > Note that when you get a traceback you would still see the actual > > argument values in the traceback. > > > > Any objections? > > > > holger > > > > > > -- > They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment: > http://modernthings.org/ _______________________________________________ Pytest-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
