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

Add test to assert that issue 389 is resolved. #744

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

jsa34
Copy link
Collaborator

@jsa34 jsa34 commented Nov 29, 2024

Tidy up imports in tests in the same file as new test written.

Resolves #389

Tidy up imports in tests in the same file as new test written.

Resolves #389
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.09%. Comparing base (d527a67) to head (07ca9ef).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #744      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.07%   96.09%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          55       55              
  Lines        2244     2251       +7     
  Branches      246      246              
==========================================
+ Hits         2156     2163       +7     
  Misses         53       53              
  Partials       35       35              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

youtux
youtux previously approved these changes Nov 29, 2024
tests/args/test_common.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

@given(parsers.parse('Action "{action}" is taken'))
def take_action1(action):
print(f'take_action1:{action}')
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

let's use dumb_obj and collect_dumped_obj instead, I made them for exactly this purpose



def test_same_name_for_step_arg_and_example_parameter(pytester):
"""Test that using the same name for step arg and example parameter works as intended."""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

still not clear what we are testing here. Is it about params being filled from example tables vs from parsing the step name?
If so let's make it clearer in the docstring.

Maybe let's also rewrite the step names, like:

  • Given foo gets value "A" by the step parser
  • Given bar gets value <example_value> from the example table

This would be much clearer to me

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the other test is actually testing the same thing and this can be closed

@jsa34 jsa34 closed this Dec 1, 2024
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.

Unexpected behavior in scenario outline
2 participants