[pytest-dev] [3.1 feature] "assert not raise exception" helper: opinions about the name

[holger krekel]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 23:08 +0200, Ronny Pfannschmidt wrote:
> I do because we make something a "magical god function" again, more of the rant tommorow.

God functions or objects are usually ones that do many different things.
Here, "pytest.raises" deals with the dependent code block's exception 
raising behaviour -- allowing None (to signal: no exception expected) 
does not change or much extend this functionality.

holger




> Gn8, Ronny
> 
> Am 30. März 2017 23:03:45 MESZ schrieb Bruno Oliveira <nicoddemus at gmail.com>:
> >On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:32 PM holger krekel <holger at merlinux.eu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> It's a bit odd to introduce a new helper just for this particular
> >case.
> >> After skimming https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/issues/1830
> >> i'd prefer the mentioned pytest.raises(None) solution which lets
> >through
> >> all exceptions
> >> of the dependent code block.  Adding an example to the pytest docs
> >and
> >> extending
> >> the pytest.raises help string and implementation would be enough IMO.
> >> By contrast, adding a new helper feels like unneccessary clutter of
> >> the pytest.* namespace. The above would then be:
> >>
> >>  @pytest.mark.parametrize('inp, expectation', [
> >>      (-1, ValueError),
> >>      (3.5, TypeError),
> >>      (5, None),
> >>      (10, None)])
> >>  def test_bar(inp, expectation):
> >>      with pytest.raises(expectation):
> >>          validate_positive_integer(inp)
> >>
> >> where the parametrization is shorter and if one does not know
> >> what pytest.raises(None) means one could find it easily in the
> >> doc string or the pytest docs.
> >>
> >
> >I agree. Does anybody else still prefers the original proposal?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Bruno.