-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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 pytest.mark.parametrize
rules to check calls instead of decorators
#14515
Conversation
The upstream rule also checks calls: def visit_Call(self, node: ast.Call) -> None:
if is_parametrize_call(node):
self._check_parametrize_call(node) |
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_pytest_style/rules/parametrize.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
code | total | + violation | - violation | + fix | - fix |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT006 | 49 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PT007 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
fda25ed
to
3f385b6
Compare
crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/flake8_pytest_style/rules/parametrize.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…rize.rs Co-authored-by: Micha Reiser <micha@reiser.io>
} | ||
} | ||
pub(crate) fn parametrize(checker: &mut Checker, call: &ExprCall) { | ||
if !is_pytest_parametrize(call, checker.semantic()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unrelated to this PR, but PT rules don't have a seen_module
guard. Shoud we add it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah we could.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like a nice good first issue.
if checker.enabled(Rule::PytestParametrizeNamesWrongType) { | ||
if let Some(names) = call.arguments.find_argument("argnames", 0) { | ||
check_names(checker, call, names); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if checker.enabled(Rule::PytestParametrizeValuesWrongType) { | ||
let names = call.arguments.find_argument("argnames", 0); | ||
let values = call.arguments.find_argument("argvalues", 1); | ||
if let (Some(names), Some(values)) = (names, values) { | ||
check_values(checker, names, values); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if checker.enabled(Rule::PytestDuplicateParametrizeTestCases) { | ||
if let Some(values) = call.arguments.find_argument("argvalues", 1) { | ||
check_duplicates(checker, values); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This aligns with the upstream implementation:
def extract_parametrize_call_args(node: ast.Call) -> Optional[ParametrizeArgs]:
"""Extracts argnames, argvalues and ids from a parametrize call."""
args = get_simple_call_args(node)
names_arg = args.get_argument('argnames', 0)
if names_arg is None:
return None
values_arg = args.get_argument('argvalues', 1)
ids_arg = args.get_argument('ids')
return ParametrizeArgs(names_arg, values_arg, ids_arg)
Thanks for the how-to-guide and API reference. That helps a lot with building the required context to review the rule. I really appreciate it :) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great. Did you already look through the ecosystem changes? I can do it, if you haven't.
I think we should gate this change behind preview mode because I consider this a "significant increase in scope" and we should only make such changes in minor releases.
@MichaReiser Thanks for the comment. This PR has the two changes. Do we want to gate both of them?
|
Oh right. Making 1. preview-only for now seems more important to me than 2. We can have a look at the ecosystem change to understand how much impact 2 has but I think it's fine to not gate 2. |
For Airflow, 2 has more impacts (more changes) than 1. |
Right, I should have taken a closer look at the ecosystem results. We should then probably make 2 a preview style change as well. It's a bit annoying codewise but feels most in line with our versioning policy |
2f3d825
to
509c5c6
Compare
Summary
Currently, rules for
pytest.mark.parametrize
(e.g./pytest-parametrize-names-wrong-type (PT006)
) only check decorators, butpytest.mark.parametrize
can appear as a function call as show below.Test Plan
Existing tests and a new test case to ensure the fix is valid.