Support Trio testing with Hypothesis #44
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #44 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.7% 95.28% -0.42%
==========================================
Files 10 11 +1
Lines 256 276 +20
Branches 23 26 +3
==========================================
+ Hits 245 263 +18
- Misses 8 9 +1
- Partials 3 4 +1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
| @given(st.integers()) | ||
| @pytest.mark.trio | ||
| async def test_mark_inner(n): | ||
| pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wouldn't it be interesting to add a isinstance(n, int) check in the body just to be sure ?
| @given(x=st.integers()) | ||
| @pytest.mark.trio | ||
| async def test_mark_and_parametrize(x, y): | ||
| pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, but I would make the parametrize and given produce different types of data just to be sure we don't get x and y mixed
pytest_trio/plugin.py
Outdated
| print(dir(item.obj)) | ||
| if hasattr(item.obj, 'hypothesis'): | ||
| # If it's a Hypothesis test, we go in a layer. We *don't* check | ||
| # that this is a coroutine function, because we might have wrapped |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm concerned about the "might have wrapped", what happened if the test function is synchronous but wrapper in a hypothesis.given ? I would say we must always check the test function is async (because we will always call it async still and get a crash if it's not the case).
A simple solution I see is to move the check within _trio_test_runner_factory (given it is currently called just after the check it would change nothing, and it's pretty evident the parameter passed to this factory must be an async function)
test-requirements.txt
Outdated
| @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ | |||
| pytest | |||
| pytest-cov | |||
| hypothesis | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't we add a >=3.64.0 rule to this requirement ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure! You should probably add minimum versions to pytest and pytest-cov too then, as I'm sure there are some old enough that they don't work...
|
Thanks for the PR, I'm really eager to merge this one 馃槂 |
Zac-HD
force-pushed
the
hypothesis-experiment
branch
from
2e59925
to
ccd5ec2
Compare
|
馃挴 Great 馃 job 馃帀 @Zac-HD 馃嵕 ! |
|
Thanks, and welcome! 馃帀 馃巶 No pressure, but if you'd like to keep contributing then we'd love to have you, so I'm sending you a github invite now. You can read more about this in our contributing documentation. |
|
I'm delighted to be on the team, and will certainly hang around! Also delighted by the contributing docs - they're excellent, congrats 馃帀 |
Closes #42, based on my work upstream in HypothesisWorks/hypothesis#1343.
CC @njsmith and @zmitchell - note that you'll need a recent version of Hypothesis as the mechanism to support this was literally released yesterday! It's public API and perfectly stable though, agreeing on a design we liked enough to support long-term is the main thing that took us so long 馃槃