Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix combining of scenario outline and pytest parametrization after #445 #455

Conversation

elchupanebrej
Copy link

This address to #448

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 24, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #455 (4b34685) into master (6e42167) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #455   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.93%   95.94%           
=======================================
  Files          50       50           
  Lines        1649     1653    +4     
  Branches      153      153           
=======================================
+ Hits         1582     1586    +4     
  Misses         41       41           
  Partials       26       26           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
tests/feature/test_parametrized.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
pytest_bdd/parser.py 99.55% <100.00%> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
pytest_bdd/scenario.py 91.66% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6e42167...4b34685. Read the comment docs.

@elchupanebrej
Copy link
Author

elchupanebrej commented Oct 25, 2021

@youtux @olegpidsadnyi Please review

@bbatliner
Copy link

This is exactly the patch I was expecting to see after encountering KeyErrors related to the parameterization example in the README with the <start> syntax.

However, Oleg's comment on the related issue suggests that this feature will be removed in the future?

Am I understanding this correctly? Why would this be removed?

@elchupanebrej
Copy link
Author

elchupanebrej commented Jan 1, 2022

Yes, this feature will be removed. An approach where a test is parametrized inside python code and this parametrization is used in Gherkin scenario definition is broken "by design" because hides some information that has to be present in Examples, so you couldn't share your scenario with stakeholders without losing some information needed for scenario execution.
I found that there is some backward incompatibility and created this patch. But with approval from core maintainers, I'll close this patch after removing rudiments of old approach

@elchupanebrej
Copy link
Author

Superseded by #469

@elchupanebrej elchupanebrej deleted the fix_fixture_step_substitution branch January 1, 2022 22:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants