Charles R Harris kirjoitti 12.07.2017 klo 13:53:
> In practice, that would generally be true, but the nose testing tools
> were 1, all nose imports were buried in functions that ran during
> testing. Whether or not that was by intent I don't know. But having an
> explicit consensus on 2, which seem
Charles R Harris kirjoitti 12.07.2017 klo 13:53:
> In practice, that would generally be true, but the nose testing tools
> were 1, all nose imports were buried in functions that ran during
> testing. Whether or not that was by intent I don't know. But having an
> explicit consensus on 2, which seem
Charles R Harris kirjoitti 12.07.2017 klo 13:53:
> In practice, that would generally be true, but the nose testing tools
> were 1, all nose imports were buried in functions that ran during
> testing. Whether or not that was by intent I don't know. But having an
> explicit consensus on 2, which seem
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Chris Barker
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Caswell
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Going with option 2 is probably the best option so that you can use
>>> pytest fixtures and parameteriza
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Chris Barker
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Thomas Caswell
> wrote:
>
>> Going with option 2 is probably the best option so that you can use
>> pytest fixtures and parameterization.
>>
>
> I agree -- those are worth a lot!
>
Maybe I'm dense, but
