From dhunt at mozilla.com Fri Dec 1 05:24:16 2017 From: dhunt at mozilla.com (Dave Hunt) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:24:16 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Great, thanks Bruno. We just need one more +1 in order to proceed. Cheers, Dave > On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:18, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:16 PM Dave Hunt > wrote: > I?d like to propose moving the pytest-metadata plugin to pytest-dev. > > Definitely +1! > > Cheers, > Bruno. > > It?s a dependency for pytest-html, which is already in the pytest-dev organisation, so I believe this makes sense. I would still be the owner/maintainer, but it means that if I?m unavailable then others could land emergency fixes. The repository is configured to deploy after a successful Travis CI build whenever a tag is pushed, so anyone with push access would be able to release a new version. > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pytest-metadata/ > > Cheers, > Dave > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From aninhacostaribeiro at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 08:06:51 2017 From: aninhacostaribeiro at gmail.com (Ana Ribeiro) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:06:51 -0300 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi, I don't know if my +1 means anything since I am not an active maintainer of pytest, but I definitely give a +1 Cheers 2017-12-01 7:24 GMT-03:00 Dave Hunt : > Great, thanks Bruno. We just need one more +1 in order to proceed. > > Cheers, > Dave > > On 30 Nov 2017, at 16:18, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:16 PM Dave Hunt wrote: > >> I?d like to propose moving the pytest-metadata plugin to pytest-dev. >> > > Definitely +1! > > Cheers, > Bruno. > > It?s a dependency for pytest-html, which is already in the pytest-dev >> organisation, so I believe this makes sense. I would still be the >> owner/maintainer, but it means that if I?m unavailable then others could >> land emergency fixes. The repository is configured to deploy after a >> successful Travis CI build whenever a tag is pushed, so anyone with push >> access would be able to release a new version. >> >> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pytest-metadata/ >> >> Cheers, >> Dave >> _______________________________________________ >> pytest-dev mailing list >> pytest-dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From me at the-compiler.org Fri Dec 1 11:25:06 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:25:06 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <20171201162506.ctcxpe2zq6g5kxev@hooch.localdomain> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:06:51AM -0300, Ana Ribeiro wrote: > I don't know if my +1 means anything since I am not an active maintainer of > pytest, but I definitely give a +1 I'll +1 your +1 then ;-) Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Fri Dec 1 11:25:12 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:25:12 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: <603abdbe-fa4a-06f8-7203-9883738d3785@ronnypfannschmidt.de> +1 from me, sorry for being late Am 30.11.2017 um 17:18 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:16 PM Dave Hunt > wrote: > > I?d like to propose moving the pytest-metadata plugin to pytest-dev. > > > Definitely?+1! > > Cheers, > Bruno.? > > It?s a dependency for pytest-html, which is already in the > pytest-dev organisation, so I believe this makes sense. I would > still be the owner/maintainer, but it means that if I?m > unavailable then others could land emergency fixes. The repository > is configured to deploy after a successful Travis CI build > whenever a tag is pushed, so anyone with push access would be able > to release a new version. > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pytest-metadata/ > > Cheers, > Dave > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicoddemus at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 13:11:30 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 18:11:30 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: <20171201162506.ctcxpe2zq6g5kxev@hooch.localdomain> References:

<20171201162506.ctcxpe2zq6g5kxev@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: Great, thanks everyone! Dave, feel free to transfer to me when you have the chance and I will follow with the procedure. :) On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM Florian Bruhin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:06:51AM -0300, Ana Ribeiro wrote: > > I don't know if my +1 means anything since I am not an active maintainer > of > > pytest, but I definitely give a +1 > > I'll +1 your +1 then ;-) > > Florian > > -- > https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) > GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc > I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhunt at mozilla.com Mon Dec 4 04:44:36 2017 From: dhunt at mozilla.com (Dave Hunt) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:44:36 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: References:

<20171201162506.ctcxpe2zq6g5kxev@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: <1EEA0C2C-0087-4D39-977C-AD192C528FE9@mozilla.com> Thanks everyone! Bruno, I?ve initiated the transfer. Dave > On 1 Dec 2017, at 18:11, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > Great, thanks everyone! > > Dave, feel free to transfer to me when you have the chance and I will follow with the procedure. :) > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM Florian Bruhin > wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:06:51AM -0300, Ana Ribeiro wrote: > > I don't know if my +1 means anything since I am not an active maintainer of > > pytest, but I definitely give a +1 > > I'll +1 your +1 then ;-) > > Florian > > -- > https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) > GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc > I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From nicoddemus at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 06:42:37 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:42:37 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move davehunt/pytest-metadata to pytest-dev/metadata In-Reply-To: <1EEA0C2C-0087-4D39-977C-AD192C528FE9@mozilla.com> References:

<20171201162506.ctcxpe2zq6g5kxev@hooch.localdomain> <1EEA0C2C-0087-4D39-977C-AD192C528FE9@mozilla.com> Message-ID: Dave, All done, let me know if anything is amiss! Cheers On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:44 AM Dave Hunt wrote: > Thanks everyone! Bruno, I?ve initiated the transfer. > > Dave > > > On 1 Dec 2017, at 18:11, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > Great, thanks everyone! > > Dave, feel free to transfer to me when you have the chance and I will > follow with the procedure. :) > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM Florian Bruhin wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:06:51AM -0300, Ana Ribeiro wrote: >> > I don't know if my +1 means anything since I am not an active >> maintainer of >> > pytest, but I definitely give a +1 >> >> I'll +1 your +1 then ;-) >> >> Florian >> >> -- >> https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) >> GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc >> I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ >> _______________________________________________ >> pytest-dev mailing list >> pytest-dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keith.franklin at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 06:49:24 2017 From: keith.franklin at gmail.com (Dr Keith M Franklin) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:49:24 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of finalizers vs yield Message-ID: Good morning/afternoon, I hope this is the right place to post this. I?ve been using PyTest for a while but recently come across someone else?s fixture which made me wonder if I?m doing this right. Basically I?ve been creating a fixture like and adding a finalizer like so: @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) def my_fixture(request): # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record rec = DBObject() def clean_up(): # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back to the ... request.addfinalizer(clean_up) return rec However, I?ve seen fixtures written using yield instead e.g. @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) def my_fixture(request): # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record rec = DBObject() yield rec # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back to the ... Can I ask, is there any real difference between the two approaches? Is there a preferred method and if so why? Thanks in advance for any help. Keith From nicoddemus at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 07:14:42 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:14:42 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of finalizers vs yield In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Keith, Both approaches are valid and identical; I personally prefer using yield because to me it feels more natural. Cheers, On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:49 AM Dr Keith M Franklin wrote: > > Good morning/afternoon, > > I hope this is the right place to post this. I?ve been using PyTest for a > while but recently come across someone else?s fixture which made me wonder > if I?m doing this right. Basically I?ve been creating a fixture like and > adding a finalizer like so: > > @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) > def my_fixture(request): > # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record > rec = DBObject() > > def clean_up(): > # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state > back to the > ... > request.addfinalizer(clean_up) > return rec > > > However, I?ve seen fixtures written using yield instead e.g. > > > @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) > def my_fixture(request): > # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record > rec = DBObject() > yield rec > > # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back > to the > ... > > Can I ask, is there any real difference between the two approaches? Is > there a preferred method and if so why? > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From edluzonjr at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 07:43:02 2017 From: edluzonjr at gmail.com (Ernesto D. Luzon Jr.) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:43:02 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of finalizers vs yield Message-ID: PyTest fixtures using addfinalizer() become convenient when you want to make them work in RobotFramework as well. def fixture_being_used_in_robotframework(): closure = "details of how to cleanup the fixture" def clean_up(): print(closure) return clean_up @pytest.fixture() def reuse_robotframework_fixture(request): request.addfinalizer(fixture_being_used_in_robotframework()) Cheers, Ernesto > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:49:24 +0000 > From: Dr Keith M Franklin > To: pytest-dev at python.org > Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of > finalizers vs yield > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > Good morning/afternoon, > > I hope this is the right place to post this. I?ve been using PyTest for a > while but recently come across someone else?s fixture which made me wonder > if I?m doing this right. Basically I?ve been creating a fixture like and > adding a finalizer like so: > > @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) > def my_fixture(request): > # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record > rec = DBObject() > > def clean_up(): > # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state > back to the > ... > request.addfinalizer(clean_up) > return rec > > > However, I?ve seen fixtures written using yield instead e.g. > > > @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) > def my_fixture(request): > # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record > rec = DBObject() > yield rec > > # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back > to the > ... > > Can I ask, is there any real difference between the two approaches? Is > there a preferred method and if so why? > > Thanks in advance for any help. > > Keith > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:14:42 +0000 > From: Bruno Oliveira > To: Dr Keith M Franklin > Cc: pytest-dev at python.org > Subject: Re: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of > finalizers vs yield > Message-ID: > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Keith, > > Both approaches are valid and identical; I personally prefer using yield > because to me it feels more natural. > > Cheers, > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From flub at devork.be Mon Dec 4 08:27:56 2017 From: flub at devork.be (Floris Bruynooghe) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 14:27:56 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of finalizers vs yield In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another often-overlooked benefit of request.addfinalizer() is that it can also be used in a test directly for one-off finalization: def test_foo(request): # arrange: set some stuff up just for this test request.addfinalizer(lambda: ...) # clean global state of thing setup # act # assert But as said, if you're in a fixture and only use one .addfinalizer() call there is no difference at all between it and the yield version. It's just a matter of style. On 4 December 2017 at 13:43, Ernesto D. Luzon Jr. wrote: > > PyTest fixtures using addfinalizer() become convenient when you want to make > them work in RobotFramework as well. > > def fixture_being_used_in_robotframework(): > closure = "details of how to cleanup the fixture" > > > def clean_up(): > print(closure) > > return clean_up > > > @pytest.fixture() > def reuse_robotframework_fixture(request): > request.addfinalizer(fixture_being_used_in_robotframework()) > > > Cheers, > Ernesto > > > >> >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:49:24 +0000 >> From: Dr Keith M Franklin >> To: pytest-dev at python.org >> Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of >> finalizers vs yield >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> >> Good morning/afternoon, >> >> I hope this is the right place to post this. I?ve been using PyTest for a >> while but recently come across someone else?s fixture which made me wonder >> if I?m doing this right. Basically I?ve been creating a fixture like and >> adding a finalizer like so: >> >> @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) >> def my_fixture(request): >> # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record >> rec = DBObject() >> >> def clean_up(): >> # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state >> back to the >> ... >> request.addfinalizer(clean_up) >> return rec >> >> >> However, I?ve seen fixtures written using yield instead e.g. >> >> >> @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) >> def my_fixture(request): >> # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record >> rec = DBObject() >> yield rec >> >> # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back >> to the >> ... >> >> Can I ask, is there any real difference between the two approaches? Is >> there a preferred method and if so why? >> >> Thanks in advance for any help. >> >> Keith >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:14:42 +0000 >> From: Bruno Oliveira >> To: Dr Keith M Franklin >> Cc: pytest-dev at python.org >> Subject: Re: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of >> finalizers vs yield >> Message-ID: >> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Hi Keith, >> >> Both approaches are valid and identical; I personally prefer using yield >> because to me it feels more natural. >> >> Cheers, >> > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > From keith.franklin at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 08:51:20 2017 From: keith.franklin at gmail.com (Dr Keith M Franklin) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:51:20 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of finalizers vs yield In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F8EA2FC-D532-4253-ACDB-5889116EA236@gmail.com> I do actually normally write the finalizers function outside of the fixture so it can be reused in tests, but from what I can see that doesn?t tie you into using ?addfinalizer? as I?m guessing you could just make a call the function on return from the yield. Thanks for all the feedback, I thought that it might be the case that both are basically the same. However, I wanted to check and also see if there is a more ?approved/appropriate? method or if it was just stylistic preference. Keith > On 4 Dec 2017, at 13:27, Floris Bruynooghe wrote: > > Another often-overlooked benefit of request.addfinalizer() is that it > can also be used in a test directly for one-off finalization: > > def test_foo(request): > # arrange: set some stuff up just for this test > request.addfinalizer(lambda: ...) # clean global state of thing setup > # act > # assert > > But as said, if you're in a fixture and only use one .addfinalizer() > call there is no difference at all between it and the yield version. > It's just a matter of style. > > > On 4 December 2017 at 13:43, Ernesto D. Luzon Jr. wrote: >> >> PyTest fixtures using addfinalizer() become convenient when you want to make >> them work in RobotFramework as well. >> >> def fixture_being_used_in_robotframework(): >> closure = "details of how to cleanup the fixture" >> >> >> def clean_up(): >> print(closure) >> >> return clean_up >> >> >> @pytest.fixture() >> def reuse_robotframework_fixture(request): >> request.addfinalizer(fixture_being_used_in_robotframework()) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Ernesto >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:49:24 +0000 >>> From: Dr Keith M Franklin >>> To: pytest-dev at python.org >>> Subject: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of >>> finalizers vs yield >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>> >>> >>> Good morning/afternoon, >>> >>> I hope this is the right place to post this. I?ve been using PyTest for a >>> while but recently come across someone else?s fixture which made me wonder >>> if I?m doing this right. Basically I?ve been creating a fixture like and >>> adding a finalizer like so: >>> >>> @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) >>> def my_fixture(request): >>> # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record >>> rec = DBObject() >>> >>> def clean_up(): >>> # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state >>> back to the >>> ... >>> request.addfinalizer(clean_up) >>> return rec >>> >>> >>> However, I?ve seen fixtures written using yield instead e.g. >>> >>> >>> @pytest.fixture(scope=?function?) >>> def my_fixture(request): >>> # Code that does something e.g. creates a database record >>> rec = DBObject() >>> yield rec >>> >>> # Code required to clean up the fixture code and return the state back >>> to the >>> ... >>> >>> Can I ask, is there any real difference between the two approaches? Is >>> there a preferred method and if so why? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any help. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:14:42 +0000 >>> From: Bruno Oliveira >>> To: Dr Keith M Franklin >>> Cc: pytest-dev at python.org >>> Subject: Re: [pytest-dev] Question about fixtures and the use of >>> finalizers vs yield >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> Hi Keith, >>> >>> Both approaches are valid and identical; I personally prefer using yield >>> because to me it feels more natural. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pytest-dev mailing list >> pytest-dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev From krasoffski at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 10:23:22 2017 From: krasoffski at gmail.com (Yury Krasouski) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 18:23:22 +0300 Subject: [pytest-dev] pytest _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior Message-ID: Hello Team, To begin with, I would like to say "Thank You" for great tools. I am writing here to ask question about _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior which was used in one plug-in. I noted that API is changed a little what produced issue like this: https://github.com/reportportal/agent-python-pytest/issues/37 The fix is simple at first look: just replace _marks to own_mark_names. But I wonder about inconvenient behavior of > def __getitem__(self, name): > return name in self.own_mark_names I would expect to call list(MarkMapping) which will return list of mark names, but instead this returns infinite iterator which produced False (or True in some cases). What is the reason for such behavior? Thanks, Yury -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Mon Dec 4 11:30:23 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:30:23 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] pytest _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85fc744b-0cf9-218d-582f-6a0e77570163@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Am 04.12.2017 um 16:23 schrieb Yury Krasouski: > Hello Team, > > To begin with, I would like to say "Thank You" for great tools. > > I am writing here to ask question about _pytest/mark.MarkMapping > behavior which was used in one plug-in. I noted that API is changed a > little what produced issue like this: > https://github.com/reportportal/agent-python-pytest/issues/37 > > > The fix is simple at first look: just replace _marks to > own_mark_names. But I wonder about inconvenient behavior of > > > def __getitem__(self, name): > >? ?? return name in self.own_mark_names > > I would expect to call list(MarkMapping) which will return list of > mark names, but instead this returns infinite iterator which produced > False (or True in some cases). the im > What is the reason for such behavior? > the implementation of MarkMapping is only complete enough to fulfill its internal use case it has no correct iteration behavior implemented, thus the fallback of python breaks any use of this class outside of the code path it was hacked up for is likely completely incorrect -- Ronny > > Thanks, > Yury > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From krasoffski at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 12:29:05 2017 From: krasoffski at gmail.com (Yury Krasouski) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:29:05 +0300 Subject: [pytest-dev] pytest _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior In-Reply-To: <85fc744b-0cf9-218d-582f-6a0e77570163@ronnypfannschmidt.de> References: <85fc744b-0cf9-218d-582f-6a0e77570163@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: Hi Ronny, Many thanks for explanation! Got this idea. I am not sure that you are right person for this question. But could you do a favor and suggest a prefirable way for extraction test marks? At the current moment this looks like: > mark_plugin = test_item.config.pluginmanager.getplugin('mark') > if mark_plugin: > keywords = test_item.keywords > marks = mark_plugin.MarkMapping.from_keywords(keywords).own_mark_names > return [m for m in marks if m not in self.ignored_tags] In other words I need a list of marks assigned with test item (test). P.S. Or I need to duplicate logic in our plug-in from `from_keywords` class method? Thank you a lot, Yury 2017-12-04 19:30 GMT+03:00 RonnyPfannschmidt < opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de>: > > > Am 04.12.2017 um 16:23 schrieb Yury Krasouski: > > Hello Team, > > To begin with, I would like to say "Thank You" for great tools. > > I am writing here to ask question about _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior > which was used in one plug-in. I noted that API is changed a little what > produced issue like this: > https://github.com/reportportal/agent-python-pytest/issues/37 > > The fix is simple at first look: just replace _marks to own_mark_names. > But I wonder about inconvenient behavior of > > > def __getitem__(self, name): > > return name in self.own_mark_names > > I would expect to call list(MarkMapping) which will return list of mark > names, but instead this returns infinite iterator which produced False (or > True in some cases). the im > > What is the reason for such behavior? > > the implementation of MarkMapping is only complete enough to fulfill its > internal use case > it has no correct iteration behavior implemented, thus the fallback of > python breaks > > any use of this class outside of the code path it was hacked up for is > likely completely incorrect > > -- Ronny > > > > Thanks, > Yury > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing listpytest-dev at python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Tue Dec 5 02:35:14 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (Ronny Pfannschmidt) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:35:14 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] pytest _pytest/mark.MarkMapping behavior In-Reply-To: References: <85fc744b-0cf9-218d-582f-6a0e77570163@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: <1512459314.3489.3.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Am Montag, den 04.12.2017, 20:29 +0300 schrieb Yury Krasouski: > Hi Ronny, > > Many thanks for explanation! > > Got this idea. > > I am not sure that you are right person for this question. But could > you do a favor and suggest a prefirable way for extraction test > marks? right now there is literally no sane way to extract the actual marks however since you seem to be interested only in the names, the closest thing is [k for k in item.keywords if item.get_marker(k) is not None and k not in self.ignored_tags] -- Ronny > > At the current moment this looks like: > > mark_plugin = test_item.config.pluginmanager.getplugin('mark') > > if mark_plugin: > > keywords = test_item.keywords > > marks = > mark_plugin.MarkMapping.from_keywords(keywords).own_mark_names > > return [m for m in marks if m not in self.ignored_tags] > > In other words I need a list of marks assigned with test item (test). > > P.S. Or I need to duplicate logic in our plug-in from `from_keywords` > class method? > > Thank you a lot, > Yury > > > 2017-12-04 19:30 GMT+03:00 RonnyPfannschmidt hmidt.de>: > > > > Am 04.12.2017 um 16:23 schrieb Yury Krasouski: > > > Hello Team, > > > > > > To begin with, I would like to say "Thank You" for great tools. > > > > > > I am writing here to ask question about _pytest/mark.MarkMapping > > > behavior which was used in one plug-in. I noted that API is > > > changed a little what produced issue like this: > > > https://github.com/reportportal/agent-python-pytest/issues/37 > > > > > > The fix is simple at first look: just replace _marks to > > > own_mark_names. But I wonder about inconvenient behavior of > > > > > > > def __getitem__(self, name): > > > > return name in self.own_mark_names > > > > > > I would expect to call list(MarkMapping) which will return list > > > of mark names, but instead this returns infinite iterator which > > > produced False (or True in some cases). the im > > > > > What is the reason for such behavior? > > > > > the implementation of MarkMapping is only complete enough to > > fulfill its internal use case > > it has no correct iteration behavior implemented, thus the fallback > > of python breaks > > > > any use of this class outside of the code path it was hacked up for > > is likely completely incorrect > > > > -- Ronny > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yury > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > pytest-dev mailing list > > > pytest-dev at python.org > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > > > From nicoddemus at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 19:24:05 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 00:24:05 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] pytest 3.3.1 released! Message-ID: Hi everyone, pytest 3.3.1 has just been released to PyPI. This is a bug-fix release, being a drop-in replacement. To upgrade:: pip install --upgrade pytest The full changelog is available at http://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/changelog.html. Thanks to all who contributed to this release, among them: * Bruno Oliveira * Daniel Hahler * Eugene Prikazchikov * Florian Bruhin * Roland Puntaier * Ronny Pfannschmidt * Sebastian Rahlf * Tom Viner Happy testing, The pytest Development Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Fri Dec 8 11:36:32 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (Ronny Pfannschmidt) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 17:36:32 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks Message-ID: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Hi Everyone, a while back the people behind gitmate.io did interview me to expand their perspective with focus on how pytest does things as well as how i do certain things at work, they also provided me with a basic example on what i would have done for pytest: https://gitmate.io/report/https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpytest-dev%2Fpytest i beleive it would help to free up a lof of volunteer time from issue triaging to start and use such a tool. -- Ronny From nicoddemus at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 13:12:44 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:12:44 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: Howdy Ronny, On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt < opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > a while back the people behind gitmate.io did interview me to expand > their perspective with focus on how pytest does things as well as how i > do certain things at work, > > they also provided me with a basic example on what i would have done > for pytest: > > https://gitmate.io/report/https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpytest-dev%2Fpytest > > i beleive it would help to free up a lof of volunteer time from issue > triaging to start and use such a tool. > Looking at the features page[1] it indeed does seem helpful. I'm definitely +1 to use GitMate if it will help us cut down on issue triaging. We can always disable it later if it is not working out for us. [1] https://gitmate.io/features Cheers, Bruno > > -- Ronny > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Fri Dec 8 14:52:38 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (Ronny Pfannschmidt) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:52:38 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> i propose that unless someone vetos, i'll take a look into activating it for pytest-dev/pytest on monday. -- Ronny Am Freitag, den 08.12.2017, 18:12 +0000 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: > Howdy Ronny, > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt annschmidt.de> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > a while back the people behind gitmate.io did interview me to > > expand > > > > their perspective with focus on how pytest does things as well as > > how i > > > > do certain things at work, > > > > > > > > they also provided me with a basic example on what i would have > > done > > > > for pytest: > > > > > > > > https://gitmate.io/report/https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpytest-dev%2Fpyt > > est > > > > > > > > i beleive it would help to free up a lof of volunteer time from > > issue > > > > triaging to start and use such a tool. > > Looking at the features page[1] it indeed does seem helpful. > > I'm definitely +1 to use GitMate if it will help us cut down on issue > triaging. We can always disable it later if it is not working out for > us. > > [1] https://gitmate.io/features?? > > Cheers,Bruno > > > > -- Ronny > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > pytest-dev mailing list > > > > pytest-dev at python.org > > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicoddemus at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 15:05:46 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:05:46 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: Sounds good, thanks. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:52 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt < opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote: > i propose that unless someone vetos, i'll take a look into activating it > for pytest-dev/pytest on monday. > > -- Ronny > > Am Freitag, den 08.12.2017, 18:12 +0000 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: > > Howdy Ronny, > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt < > opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de> wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > a while back the people behind gitmate.io did interview me to expand > their perspective with focus on how pytest does things as well as how i > do certain things at work, > > they also provided me with a basic example on what i would have done > for pytest: > > https://gitmate.io/report/https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpytest-dev%2Fpytest > > i beleive it would help to free up a lof of volunteer time from issue > triaging to start and use such a tool. > > > Looking at the features page[1] it indeed does seem helpful. > > I'm definitely +1 to use GitMate if it will help us cut down on issue > triaging. We can always disable it later if it is not working out for us. > > [1] https://gitmate.io/features > > Cheers, > Bruno > > > > -- Ronny > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Mon Dec 11 04:10:54 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 10:10:54 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: <9b219483-e5ac-9e1c-e17a-283c9de3ca8b@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Hi Everyone, i enabled gitmate for pytest-dev/pytest, currently its set up in the default settings - and as far as i can tell there are quite some nice opt-in's id like to experiment with in future. -- Ronny Am 08.12.2017 um 21:05 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: > Sounds good, thanks.? > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:52 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt > > wrote: > > i propose that unless someone vetos, i'll take a look into > activating it for pytest-dev/pytest on monday. > > -- Ronny > > Am Freitag, den 08.12.2017, 18:12 +0000 schrieb Bruno Oliveira: >> Howdy Ronny, >> >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:36 PM Ronny Pfannschmidt >> > > wrote: >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> a while back the people behind gitmate.io did >>> interview me to expand >>> their perspective with focus on how pytest does things as well as >>> how i >>> do certain things at work, >>> >>> they also provided me with a basic example on what i would have done >>> for pytest: >>> >>> https://gitmate.io/report/https:%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fpytest-dev%2Fpytest >>> >>> i beleive it would help to free up a lof of volunteer time from issue >>> triaging to start and use such a tool. >> >> Looking at the features page[1] it indeed does seem helpful.? >> >> I'm definitely?+1 to use GitMate if it will help us cut down on >> issue triaging. We can always disable it later if it is not >> working out for us. >> >> [1]?https://gitmate.io/features??? >> >> Cheers, >> Bruno >> ? >>> >>> -- Ronny >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pytest-dev mailing list >>> pytest-dev at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > From me at the-compiler.org Mon Dec 11 06:52:42 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:52:42 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: <9b219483-e5ac-9e1c-e17a-283c9de3ca8b@ronnypfannschmidt.de> References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <9b219483-e5ac-9e1c-e17a-283c9de3ca8b@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: <20171211115242.3pdpncg6vsw2w4gh@hooch.localdomain> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:10:54AM +0100, RonnyPfannschmidt wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > i enabled gitmate for pytest-dev/pytest, > > currently its set up in the default settings - and as far as i can tell > there are quite some nice opt-in's id like to experiment with in future. Just enabled it for qutebrowser as well, and the first thing it did is adding a comment to the first issue I opened after enabling it, in my name, without any indication that it's not from me: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/3378#issuecomment-350700994 Could've sent a mail or something, or at the very least indicate where the comment is from - this is definitely the worst way to do something like this. YMMV, but I'm quite close to just turning it off again for qutebrowser... Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From me at the-compiler.org Mon Dec 11 07:32:43 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:32:43 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: <7989e6a0-2a27-6a5a-c610-a1d57b79d4dc@ronnypfannschmidt.de> References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <9b219483-e5ac-9e1c-e17a-283c9de3ca8b@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <20171211115242.3pdpncg6vsw2w4gh@hooch.localdomain> <7989e6a0-2a27-6a5a-c610-a1d57b79d4dc@ronnypfannschmidt.de> Message-ID: <20171211123243.dantbwlqisj33pqz@hooch.localdomain> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:31:05PM +0100, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote: > Hi, > > when i noticed that bit i was a bit shocked as well, > for pytest i mitigated the issue by switching the commenting user to > pytestbot > > its really a shocking misfeature to me that by default a *real person* > is used as the bot user. > > Luckily i could just switch it to the pytestbot for pytest and its much > less of an issue there. > Had it commented as **me** that would have been an absolute deal breaker > for me. Yeah, I probably need to find out how to make it use some @qutebot or so as well... Also see https://gitlab.com/gitmate/open-source/gitmate-2/issues/244 Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de Mon Dec 11 07:34:42 2017 From: opensource at ronnypfannschmidt.de (RonnyPfannschmidt) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 13:34:42 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] [proposal] experiment with adapting gitmate.io for automating issue maintenance/triaging tasks In-Reply-To: <20171211123243.dantbwlqisj33pqz@hooch.localdomain> References: <1512750992.3489.10.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <1512762758.3489.16.camel@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <9b219483-e5ac-9e1c-e17a-283c9de3ca8b@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <20171211115242.3pdpncg6vsw2w4gh@hooch.localdomain> <7989e6a0-2a27-6a5a-c610-a1d57b79d4dc@ronnypfannschmidt.de> <20171211123243.dantbwlqisj33pqz@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: you can use a private browser session to log into github as the bot user, then auth gitmate against it, afterwards its selecting a different username in the dropdown -- Ronny Am 11.12.2017 um 13:32 schrieb Florian Bruhin: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 01:31:05PM +0100, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> when i noticed that bit i was a bit shocked as well, >> for pytest i mitigated the issue by switching the commenting user to >> pytestbot >> >> its really a shocking misfeature to me that by default a *real person* >> is used as the bot user. >> >> Luckily i could just switch it to the pytestbot for pytest and its much >> less of an issue there. >> Had it commented as **me** that would have been an absolute deal breaker >> for me. > Yeah, I probably need to find out how to make it use some @qutebot or so as > well... > > Also see https://gitlab.com/gitmate/open-source/gitmate-2/issues/244 > > Florian > > > > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From me at adamj.eu Sat Dec 16 00:56:18 2017 From: me at adamj.eu (Adam Johnson) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 05:56:18 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move adamchainz/pytest-randomly to pytest-dev/pytest-randomly Message-ID: As Bruno suggested to me*, I'd like to propose moving pytest-randomly into the pytest-dev organization. I'd still be the main maintainer :) https://github.com/adamchainz/pytest-randomly I believe the plugin checks off all the items in the checklist: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst#submitting-plugins-to-pytest-dev Thanks! * https://github.com/adamchainz/pytest-randomly/issues/94 -- Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From me at the-compiler.org Sat Dec 16 05:55:29 2017 From: me at the-compiler.org (Florian Bruhin) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 11:55:29 +0100 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move adamchainz/pytest-randomly to pytest-dev/pytest-randomly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171216105529.nh6ypzeodmflwpq3@hooch.localdomain> Hey, (Yay, someone else with a me@ address!) On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 05:56:18AM +0000, Adam Johnson wrote: > As Bruno suggested to me*, I'd like to propose moving pytest-randomly into > the pytest-dev organization. I'd still be the main maintainer :) Sounds good, +1! Florian -- https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicoddemus at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 09:29:54 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:29:54 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move adamchainz/pytest-randomly to pytest-dev/pytest-randomly In-Reply-To: <20171216105529.nh6ypzeodmflwpq3@hooch.localdomain> References: <20171216105529.nh6ypzeodmflwpq3@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: +1 here too! :) Adam, please transfer the repository to me and I will complete the transfer! []s, On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM Florian Bruhin wrote: > Hey, > > (Yay, someone else with a me@ address!) > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 05:56:18AM +0000, Adam Johnson wrote: > > As Bruno suggested to me*, I'd like to propose moving pytest-randomly > into > > the pytest-dev organization. I'd still be the main maintainer :) > > Sounds good, +1! > > Florian > > -- > https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) > GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc > I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ > _______________________________________________ > pytest-dev mailing list > pytest-dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From me at adamj.eu Sat Dec 16 16:59:00 2017 From: me at adamj.eu (Adam Johnson) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 21:59:00 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move adamchainz/pytest-randomly to pytest-dev/pytest-randomly In-Reply-To: References: <20171216105529.nh6ypzeodmflwpq3@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: Transfer requested to nicoddemus ! On 16 December 2017 at 14:29, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > +1 here too! :) > > Adam, please transfer the repository to me and I will complete the > transfer! > > []s, > > On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM Florian Bruhin > wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> (Yay, someone else with a me@ address!) >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 05:56:18AM +0000, Adam Johnson wrote: >> > As Bruno suggested to me*, I'd like to propose moving pytest-randomly >> into >> > the pytest-dev organization. I'd still be the main maintainer :) >> >> Sounds good, +1! >> >> Florian >> >> -- >> https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) >> GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc >> I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ >> _______________________________________________ >> pytest-dev mailing list >> pytest-dev at python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >> > -- Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicoddemus at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 20:48:18 2017 From: nicoddemus at gmail.com (Bruno Oliveira) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 01:48:18 +0000 Subject: [pytest-dev] Proposal: Move adamchainz/pytest-randomly to pytest-dev/pytest-randomly In-Reply-To: References: <20171216105529.nh6ypzeodmflwpq3@hooch.localdomain> Message-ID: I think the transfer is complete now! Adam, please reach out if something is still amiss! :) Cheers, On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 7:59 PM Adam Johnson wrote: > Transfer requested to nicoddemus ! > > On 16 December 2017 at 14:29, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > >> +1 here too! :) >> >> Adam, please transfer the repository to me and I will complete the >> transfer! >> >> []s, >> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 8:55 AM Florian Bruhin >> wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> (Yay, someone else with a me@ address!) >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 05:56:18AM +0000, Adam Johnson wrote: >>> > As Bruno suggested to me*, I'd like to propose moving pytest-randomly >>> into >>> > the pytest-dev organization. I'd still be the main maintainer :) >>> >>> Sounds good, +1! >>> >>> Florian >>> >>> -- >>> https://www.qutebrowser.org | me at the-compiler.org (Mail/XMPP) >>> GPG: 916E B0C8 FD55 A072 | https://the-compiler.org/pubkey.asc >>> I love long mails! | https://email.is-not-s.ms/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pytest-dev mailing list >>> pytest-dev at python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytest-dev >>> >> > > > -- > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: