To remove fixtures.py::add_funcargs_pseudo_fixture_def and add its logic
i.e. registering funcargs as params and making corresponding fixturedefs,
right to Metafunc.parametrize in which parametrization takes place.
To remove funcargs from metafunc attributes as we populate metafunc
params and make pseudo fixturedefs simultaneously and there's no need to
keep funcargs separately.
Previously, when assigning a scope for a fully-indirect parameter set,
when there are multiple fixturedefs for a param (i.e. same-name fixture
chain), the highest scope was used, but it should be the lowest scope,
since that's the effective scope of the fixture.
I think it's helpful to separate the node classes from the other
objects, as they have their own unique usage.
I've chosen not to alphabetize the order, but to use a logical order
instead.
Also slightly improve the docstrings.
TracebackEntry needs the excinfo for the `__tracebackhide__ = callback`
functionality, where `callback` accepts the excinfo.
Currently it achieves this by storing a weakref to the excinfo which
created it. I think this is not great, mixing layers and bloating the
objects.
Instead, have `ishidden` (and transitively, `Traceback.filter()`) take
the excinfo as a parameter.
* [pre-commit.ci] pre-commit autoupdate
updates:
- [github.com/psf/black: 22.12.0 → 23.1.0](https://github.com/psf/black/compare/22.12.0...23.1.0)
- [github.com/PyCQA/autoflake: v2.0.0 → v2.0.1](https://github.com/PyCQA/autoflake/compare/v2.0.0...v2.0.1)
* [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
* Update .pre-commit-config.yaml
* [pre-commit.ci] auto fixes from pre-commit.com hooks
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
---------
Co-authored-by: pre-commit-ci[bot] <66853113+pre-commit-ci[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus@gmail.com>
Since pytest now requires Python>=3.7, we can use the stdlib attrs
clone, dataclasses, instead of the OG package.
attrs is still somewhat nicer than dataclasses and has some extra
functionality, but for pytest usage there's not really a justification
IMO to impose the extra dependency on users when a standard alternative
exists.
The main motivation for this change is to simplify the type shown in
code editors -- `Sequence[str]` is easier to follow than
`Union[list[str], tuple[str, ...]]`.
It also permits using other types if desired. It might lead to problems
if someone uses some oddball sequence type, but hopefully they won't do
that.
In the following
@pytest.mark.parametrize(..., ids=[val])
the ID values are only allowed to be `str`, `float`, `int` or `bool`.
In the following
@pytest.mark.parametrize(..., [val])
@pytest.mark.parametrize(..., [pytest.param(..., id=val])
a different code path is used, which also allows `bytes`, `complex`,
`re.Pattern`, `Enum` and anything with a `__name__`.
In the interest of consistency, use the latter code path for all cases.
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.
Since commit 89f0b5b5a2 cases as in the
added test started to fail, like they do for the standard pytest names
(`setup_module` etc). But the name `setup` in particular is way too
common for us to start taking it over more aggressively, so restore the
previous behavior which required the object to be callable.
Fix#9391.
The `pytest_pycollector_makeitem` argument `collector` is currently
annotated with type `PyCollector`. As part of #7469, that would have
required us to expose it in the public API. But really it's an
implementation detail, not something we want to expose. So replace the
annotation with the concrete python collector types that are passed.
Strictly speaking, `pytest_pycollector_makeitem` is called from
`PyCollector.collect()`, so the new type annotation is incorrect if
another type subclasses `PyCollector`. But the set of python collectors
is closed (mapping to language constructs), and the type is private, so
there shouldn't be any other deriving classes, and we can consider it
effectively sealed (unfortunately Python does not provide a way to
express this - yet?).