On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 20:49 +0000, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On 8 December 2013 09:40, holger krekel <holger@merlinux.eu> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:26 PM, holger krekel <holger@merlinux.eu> wrote:
Well, ok. Pending further input, i made pytest accept pytest.fixture decorated pytest_funcarg__ prefixed functions, see
https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/pytest/commits/aa1f0505a3156b9feca43cd67c5afc956...
I don't really like this change. IIRC this was considered when the decorator was introduced and the reason it was not allowed originally is because the signature is different between the different ways of defining fixtures. That can be very confusing too.
Not sure i follow. What is different? The only difference is that the decorator allows to specify a caching scope, params etc. It does not change anything about the fixture functions own signature.
I was assuming the old fixtures do not allow requesting other fixtures via funcargs. But I might well be wrong on that.
Indeed, old pytest_funcarg__fixture already accepted other fixtures as arguments, so no difference there. However, i now think and agree that adding @pytest.fixture markers to old-style pytest_funcarg__NAME fixtures is a bit backwards. Going for a pylint plugin probably makes more sense. So i just backed out the change (so now you cannot use @pytest.fixture on pytest_funcarg__NAME). best, holger
Regards, Floris
-- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org