-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
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
Move towards pytest style tests #4193
Comments
I'm interested in helping out with this. |
Well, no one has objected yet! I had originally wanted to keep things fairly agnostic with regards third-party tools, to stick with the stdlib But that was when there was nose, nose2 and pytest, in addition to unittest. Now:
So I'd be up for giving it a go. I'd suggest to try and keep the main usage of it fairly simple, so there's a low barrier for new contributors looking at tests. Although parameterised tests could certainly be used in a few cases, it's a good way to remove duplication. And if any other pytest things are really helpful, then let's have a look at that too.
I agree, it definitely makes sense to do it in parts rather than one big bang. Would you be able to do a smallish PR so we can see how it looks? Thank you! |
A first pass as the easier tests to port: #4369 |
unittest is no longer in Pillow. Long live pytest Is this issue resolved? |
Makes sense to me. Nice work everyone. |
Is the project interested in moving to use pytest conventions? This would mean something of the lines:
assert
instead ofunittest
assert methodsunittest
classesIf so, I can help out here and there. As there are quite a lot of tests, it might make sense to this on a file by file basis or in pieces.
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: