unittest.UnitTestCase: Allow __test__ for methods #1559
Conversation
testing/test_unittest.py
Outdated
| testdir.makepyfile(test_foo=""" | ||
| import unittest | ||
| class MyTestMeta(type): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this test is a little more complex than it needs, although I understand it was your specific use case; IMHO we should keep things simpler in pytest's test suite though, unless we are of course testing for a specific issue with meta-classes and test cases (which is not the actual problem being tested).
I would rather see something like:
class MyTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
def test_should_run(self):
pass
def test_should_not_run(self):
pass
MyTestCase.test_should_not_run.__test__ = FalseWhat do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried that initially, but it isn't allowed:
>>> import unittest
>>> class MyTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
... def test_should_run(self):
... pass
... def test_should_not_run(self):
... pass
...
>>> MyTestCase.test_should_not_run.__test__ = False
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'instancemethod' object has no attribute '__test__'
Even setattr fails:
>>> setattr(MyTestCase.test_should_not_run, '__test__', False)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
AttributeError: 'instancemethod' object has no attribute '__test__'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh right, sorry. Please set the attribute inside the class (into the function object) instead.
import unittest
class MyTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
def test_should_run(self):
pass
def test_should_not_run(self):
pass
test_should_not_run.__test__ = FalseThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice 👍 I did not think of that
__test__ needs to be checked for methods of a class too. Earlier, this was not done, and all methods in a class was assumed to be a test. This commit adds the appropriate condition to ensure that if the __test__ is set to False, it does not collect that method. Fixes #1558
|
No need to worry about the py26 failure, it is unrelated to this issue. |
|
Thanks a lot! 😁 If nobody else has any more comments, I will merge this in tomorrow. |
|
i think it might need to target features |
|
Hmm you got a point... opinions? |
|
we should probably aim for a patch release this week and a feature release next week? |
|
Sounds good! We have some nice features for 2.10 in place already. |
|
should I put it on features or master ? |
|
Please put it on features, thanks! Sorry for the side discussion. |
|
Oh, you will have to create a new PR unfortunately. |
|
@nicoddemus Yep, closing this then |
|
Moved to #1561 as based on above discussion the commit was moved to the |
|
Thanks! 👍 |
3 participants
test needs to be checked for methods of a class too. Earlier,
this was not done, and all methods in a class was assumed to be
a test. This commit adds the appropriate condition to ensure that
if the test is set to False, it does not collect that method.
Fixes #1558