New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

remove named marker attributes and collect markers in items #891

Open
RonnyPfannschmidt opened this Issue Jul 26, 2015 · 8 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@RonnyPfannschmidt
Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented Jul 26, 2015

the current model of transferring markers to the objects under test
creates a mess and needs various workarounds

instead we should always collect and merge markers in items

that way the natural path of marker transfer will be much more precisely scoped

@RonnyPfannschmidt

This comment has been minimized.

Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented Jul 26, 2015

#886 is closely related

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented Jul 30, 2015

Do you think this will be a backward-compatibility issue because there may be people relying on the actual marker decorators being transferred across the various Python functions/classes/modules, instead of relying on the node.get_marker public API?

@RonnyPfannschmidt

This comment has been minimized.

Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented Jul 30, 2015

currently markers are attributes on functions, with the change they wouldn't

so its clearly a incompatible api change

however i do think having a object local mark storage per object and a merged view on them per node would be most helpfull in future

i suspect we can provide some backward compatibility, but there will be some glitches to handle

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented Jul 30, 2015

currently markers are attributes on functions, with the change they wouldn't

But aren't they an internal implementation detail? I'm not sure how much people rely on that...

I imagined that the backward compabitility concern is why you marked it as a 3.0 milestone, that's why I'm curious. 😄

Btw, was there any talk about a 3.0 release at EuroPython?

@RonnyPfannschmidt

This comment has been minimized.

Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented Jul 30, 2015

i wasn't at EP as well,

while mark attributes are indeed implementation detail, they where exposed as usable attributes and people use them that way (in the past i did so myself, that is pre node.getmarker)

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented Jul 30, 2015

Hmmm I see, thanks!

@The-Compiler

This comment has been minimized.

Member

The-Compiler commented Aug 5, 2016

Since we really want to get 3.0 out, changing the milestone to 4.0 for this.

@RonnyPfannschmidt

This comment has been minimized.

Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented Apr 10, 2018

deprecated in #3317

@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt removed this from in progress in resolve the mark fallout Apr 10, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment