[py-dev] using funcargs for setup/teardown

[Frederik Dohr]

>> http://gist.github.com/214495
> 
> not sure i see the need for funcargs with this example - 
> why don't you use the "traditional" setup_module/teardown_module

I agree that it seems like overkill. (That's in part intentional though,
due to it being a learning experience.)
Yet I liked the idea of having a decorator for expressiveness/salience.

Also, I was under the impression that {setup,teardown}_{module,class}
were deprecated (cf. Philippe's message), with funcargs generally being 
the preferred option.

Since I need setup and teardown for each individual test function,
setup_module doesn't help me much - which leaves me with grouping tests
into a class. I'm not entirely happy with that though, because it seems 
a little boilerplatey and potentially makes for weird grouping of tests.

This led me to the option of a decorator wrapping the respective test 
function in a "try: test(); finally: teardown()" - which worked fine, 
but seemed to obscure the traceback on failures.

For my main project, I've realized that I don't actually need teardown.
Instead, I use a function call (could perhaps become a decorator) at the
_beginning_ of each test which resets the environment (e.g. erasing the
data store). This has the added benefit of leaving inspectable leftovers
after the last test (handy with py.test -x).
I realize this tabula rasa approach might not be suitable for all
projects though.


-- F.