I still think it makes sense to always serve docs from the release branch (rather than the latest tagged release), but that means we need to update it on new releases.
The docs already assume an 'upstream' remote, so we can only fetch from there instead of fetching all remotes. We also don't need to hardcode the remote URL.
alinsa_vix in Discord noticed that we are not testing Python 3.9 and 3.10 on macOS, which seems strange. Maybe this is due how to macOS CI resources were quite scarce for a while, but I believe this has improved since.
* releasing: Add template for major releases
With pytest 6.0.0, we still used a manual releasing workflow (at least if I
remember correctly), and apparently we never wrote a release announcement
template for major releases. Instead, the minor release template claimed that
the release would contain "breaking changes", which doesn't seem reasonable.
Thus, this adds a new major template based on the former minor template, and
adjusts the latter to only mention fixes and new features instead.
* Update scripts/release.minor.rst
Co-authored-by: Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com>
* Add additional docs for uncooperative ctor deprecation
Fixes#9488
* [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
* Break up long line
* Recommend kwonly args
Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
This commit only refactors, it does not change or add functionality yet. Public
API is retained. Reason or refactoring:
User provided parameter IDs (e.g. Metafunc.parametrize(ids=...)) had so far
only been used to calculate a unique test ID for each test invocation. That
test ID was a joined string where each parameter contributed some partial ID.
We're soon going to reuse functionality to generate parameter keys for
reorder_items and FixtureDef cache. We will be interested in the partial
IDs, and only if they originate from explicit user information. Refactoring
makes logic and data accessible for reuse, and increases cohesion in general.
The docstring (and function name itself) described things as if IDs are
being assigned to the argnames, but actually they're assigned to the
parameter sets.
If we do the `update`s in the right order, we can avoid the `mark.name
not in self.keywords` check, since `self.keywords` starts out clean and
`update` will override previously set keywords.
By my analysis, this deleted code block has no effect:
1. `self.keywords` is `update`d with `callspec.marks`.
2. `self.own_markers` is `update`d with `callspec.marks`.
3. `self.keywords` is `update`d with `self.own_markers`.
So together steps 2+3 completely undo step 1.
This does have a slight semantic change: in a node hierarchy parent ->
child, if parent has a marker applied, then child is constructed, then
`parent.themarker = "overridden"`, previously
`child.keywords['themarker']` would return `True`, now it returns
`"overridden"`. But that's actually what I would have expected so I see
it as more of a bugfix.
(except `Instance`)
Currently, `Function` does this manually, but other node types don't get
their markers added to their `keywords`, but they should, if only for
consistency.
Marks are added to keywords in three places:
- `Node.add_marker`: name -> `Mark`
- `Function.__init__(callspec)`: name -> `Mark`
- `Function.__init__ iter_markers`: name -> True
I think it should be consistent, which will also help with some upcoming
code cleaning. The `Mark` seems more useful than just a `True`, so
switch to that.
