Hello Kallithea from pytesters

[Marc Abramowitz]

I'm thinking we can probably convert the nose generative test functions to
pytest parameterized tests --
http://pytest.org/latest/parametrize.html#parametrized-test-functions

I'm experimenting with it now...

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire <
patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire
> <patrickdepinguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Marc Abramowitz <msabramo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Just wanted to say a quick hello. I volunteered for adopt pytest month.
> I have used pytest (and Tox as well, which I suspect could be useful here)
> quite a bit for both personal projects and my professional work - i.e.: my
> current work at SurveyMonkey.
> >>
> >> I'll try to download and try out Kallithea soon (I've never used it),
> try out the test suite, etc. and see where we might be able to get some
> wins.
> >
> > Welcome indeed! I'm excited to get this pytest-adoption started.
> > My hope is that this is not just one month, which is probably too
> > short to fix the entire test suite.
> >
> > To get started, use following instructions to set up an environment:
> > http://kallithea.readthedocs.org/en/latest/contributing.html
> >
> > You can run the existing testsuite from this virtualenv using
> 'nosetests'.
> >
> > First step would indeed be to use pytest as test runner instead of
> > nosetests. On IRC (#kallithea on freenode) Ronny already indicated a
> > first blocker related to yield tests.
> >
> > Quick log:
> > <ronny> patrickdp: atm there is one big pytest side blocker, detailed
> > nose yield tests are not compatible with pytest yield tests
> > <ronny> so right now the testsuite runs in a completely broken
> > setupstate wrt yield tests
> > <ronny> since the testsuite also uses very detailed checks with
> > setup/teardown, a moinmoin style workaround (different
> > collection/execution for generators) is not possible
> > <ronny> (where not means not without lots of work)
> > <ronny> im not yet sure of a good strategy to work that out
> > <patrickdp> ronny: what exactly are 'yield tests' ?
> > <ronny> patrickdp: yield tests are tests which use a toplevel yield to
> > yield distinct checks to the test executor
> >
> > Any ideas to proceed are most definitely welcome here...
> >
>
> It looks like the only test files that have yield tests are:
> models/test_user_permissions_on_repo_groups.py
> models/test_user_group_permissions_on_repo_groups.py
>
> In the tests in these files, the pattern is typically:
>     for name, perm in repo_items:
>         yield check_tree_perms, name, perm, group, 'repository.read'
>
>     for name, perm in items:
>         yield check_tree_perms, name, perm, group, 'group.write'
>
>
> where:
>     repo_items = [x for x in _get_repo_perms(group, recursive)]
>     items = [x for x in _get_group_perms(group, recursive)]
>
> and:
> def check_tree_perms(obj_name, repo_perm, prefix, expected_perm):
>     assert repo_perm == expected_perm, ('obj:`%s` got perm:`%s`
> should:`%s`'
>                                     % (obj_name, repo_perm, expected_perm))
>
>
> If yield tests are a problem, what about just transforming such yield
> tests into simple tests? Each test function that is currently yielding
> new test methods would become one simple test, iterating over the
> items and repo_items and asserting for each combination, thus
> replacing the yield statement with the assert itself.
>
> This may not be as nice as a test could fail due to many different
> scenarios, but since there are only test files that have this problem
> and since such yield tests are a blocking issue as said by Ronny, such
> a solution could deblock pytest conversion.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/kallithea-general/attachments/20150407/d9a95fc1/attachment.html>