Simple enhancement to @ddt decorator to make it possible to provide user-friendly test method names

[santtu]

Basically, this allows to do something like:

def make_data(...):
    d = ...
    setattr(d, "__name__", "friendly_name_computed_from_data")
    return d

@dds
class ...:
    @data(make_data(...), make_data(....), make_data(...))
    def test_much_data(self, data):
        ....

Unless __name__ is in the data, the current formatting behavior is used.

[txels]

Nice idea. Could you add a simple test case in test_functional and a note in the docs in example.rst?

[santtu]

Here you go.

By the way, are you sure about how feed_data is used? Check out test_example.py method test_greater -- if tuple/list is given in @data, it is passed as-is and not as multiple arguments to the test function (which would be more useful).

[txels]

Is this intentional? I know it has no impact on the test, but funnily enough in my language (catalan) passo colloquially means I don't care :)

[txels]

Nice work. Check the typo(?) and I'll merge.

About feed_data, that is a fair point that someone else raised before. It was a conscious decision to do it like this, but it can be revisited or extended. I just opened an issue as a point for discussion, I'm interested in your feedback (see #3).

The rationale of my initial decision was that if I always unpack data, it would not be possible to write cases where you do want to get tuples fed to your test case (e.g. where you want to test a function that has tuples as parameters).

[santtu]

Unintentional. Since the func wasn't really run at all, it didn't show up :-)

[txels]

Merged, sorry about the delay. Thanks!

[santtu]

Thanks! When are you planning to update pypi? I have a custom sdist in our build deps I'd like to get rid of :-)

[txels]

There you are, uploaded as 0.2.0.
http://pypi.python.org/pypi/ddt/0.2.0

[santtu]

Thanks!