I do because we make something a "magical god function" again, more of the rant tommorow.
Gn8, Ronny Am 30. März 2017 23:03:45 MESZ schrieb Bruno Oliveira <[email protected]>: >On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:32 PM holger krekel <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> It's a bit odd to introduce a new helper just for this particular >case. >> After skimming https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/issues/1830 >> i'd prefer the mentioned pytest.raises(None) solution which lets >through >> all exceptions >> of the dependent code block. Adding an example to the pytest docs >and >> extending >> the pytest.raises help string and implementation would be enough IMO. >> By contrast, adding a new helper feels like unneccessary clutter of >> the pytest.* namespace. The above would then be: >> >> @pytest.mark.parametrize('inp, expectation', [ >> (-1, ValueError), >> (3.5, TypeError), >> (5, None), >> (10, None)]) >> def test_bar(inp, expectation): >> with pytest.raises(expectation): >> validate_positive_integer(inp) >> >> where the parametrization is shorter and if one does not know >> what pytest.raises(None) means one could find it easily in the >> doc string or the pytest docs. >> > >I agree. Does anybody else still prefers the original proposal? > >Cheers, >Bruno.
_______________________________________________ pytest-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev
