Recommend a better way to mark remote data tests in remote test modules #2502
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The testing documentation already recommends placing all remote tests in a separate test module. This allows applying the `remote-data` mark to all the test functions through the `pytestmark` global variable instead of applying a decorator to each function separately.
The individual `@pytest.mark.remote_data` decorators have been removed from `atomic` remote tests and are replaced with the `pytestmark` global variable. This serves as an example other sub-packages can follow.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2502 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 62.99% 62.99%
=======================================
Files 133 133
Lines 17291 17291
=======================================
Hits 10892 10892
Misses 6399 6399 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
keflavich
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2022
bsipocz
approved these changes
Sep 9, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good. My only reservation is that a few modules have a bit of a hit-and-miss for separating online and local tests, and using this approach may skip more tests than is absolutely necessary.
The workaround for that is to be more watchful in review and spot when a test is being put in the incorrect test file.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently many test modules define a class that contains the test functions as methods. This has been convenient because marking the class with the
pytest.mark.remote_datadecorator applies the mark to all its methods, removing the need to mark each function individually. However, if all remote tests are in a separate module like the documentation already recommends then thepytestmarkglobal variable could be used instead. The classes in remote test modules would not be needed and removing them would save one level of indentation.This pull request updates the documentation to recommend
pytestmark, and introduces it in theatomicsub-package as an example.