[Numpy-discussion] pytest and degrees of separation.

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers at gmail.com
Thu Jul 13 06:41:02 EDT 2017

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:

> Charles R Harris kirjoitti 12.07.2017 klo 13:53:
> > In practice, that would generally be true, but the nose testing tools
> > were 1, all nose imports were buried in functions that ran during
> > testing. Whether or not that was by intent I don't know. But having an
> > explicit consensus on 2, which seems to be the case here, is helpful
> > because it allows better use of pytest fixtures.
> I guess the question is about shipping new pytest fixtures as a part of
> the public API of numpy.testing, for use by 3rd party projects.

Agreed. That's a different question, and I'd prefer to keep things as they
are in that respect. Otherwise it's basically a hard dependency of numpy
itself on pytest.

> If the issue is only with Numpy's own tests, they can import stuff from
> a private submodule that's not imported by "import numpy.testing", so it
> does not introduce a dependency.
> (Similar thing for the public API might also be possible e.g. "import
> numpy.testing.pytest_fixtures" but it comes at the cost of a new
> submodule.)
> So I guess a main question actually is: how much of the public API in
> numpy.testing should be ported to pytest for use by 3rd projects?
> The numerical assert functions are obviously useful.
> The warnings suppression (pytest warning stuff IIRC doesn't deal with
> warning registries nor work around the bugs in warnings.catch_warnings)
> similarly --- it could make sense to actually upstream it...

> But I'm not so clear about the rest.

Agreed, nothing in the decorators that obviously needs a pytest-based
implementation. The Tester class may be the one thing.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20170713/31f0ae5e/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list