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

junitxml make verbose output opt-in #595

Closed
pytestbot opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 9 comments
Closed

junitxml make verbose output opt-in #595

pytestbot opened this issue Sep 23, 2014 · 9 comments
Labels
good first issue easy issue that is friendly to new contributor status: help wanted developers would like help from experts on this topic type: proposal proposal for a new feature, often to gather opinions or design the API around the new feature

Comments

@pytestbot
Copy link
Contributor

Originally reported by: David Szotten (BitBucket: davidszotten, GitHub: davidszotten)


6954363 changed junitxml to include captured output for passing and skipped tests in the output by default. this makes the xml unnecessarily large for our use cases

i think this behaviour should become opt-in (or at the very least add opt-out)

feature is easy to add, but my issue was with giving this a good option name. i was also slightly concerned with growing the already large list of options with parameters that only apply when already using --junitxml

are there any plans for grouping/namespacing options (so that a top level --help would be less verbose)

and setting aside the digression, any thoughts on making this opt-in (and if so, of a good option name. so far considered junitxml-verbose-output, junitxml-always-include-output; just using the --verbose flag (don't like that))

thanks


@pytestbot pytestbot added the type: proposal proposal for a new feature, often to gather opinions or design the API around the new feature label Jun 15, 2015
@RonnyPfannschmidt RonnyPfannschmidt added status: help wanted developers would like help from experts on this topic good first issue easy issue that is friendly to new contributor labels Sep 13, 2015
@Akasurde
Copy link
Contributor

Akasurde commented Dec 4, 2015

@RonnyPfannschmidt I would like to help here

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@Akasurde we'd gladly accept a PR

the current idea to solve this would be to implement a CLI flag and only add the output sections if it is true

To ensure backward compatibility, we should probably default to true and have the CLI option set the flag to false using store_false

@jotes
Copy link

jotes commented Jun 29, 2016

Hi @RonnyPfannschmidt, can I take this issue? It would be probably nice start into py-test codebase.

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@jotes feel free to, its been waiting since months

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

@jotes did you find any time for this one, it would be a nice perk for 3.0

@jotes
Copy link

jotes commented Jul 21, 2016

@RonnyPfannschmidt Hi, I'm planning to dig into it during the weekend. If it's more urgent, please feel free to assign someone else.

@RonnyPfannschmidt
Copy link
Member

its not "urgent" per se its just that if nobody volunteers it before 3.0 it will have to go to a later feature release

@jotes
Copy link

jotes commented Jul 21, 2016

@RonnyPfannschmidt Okay, i'll ping you as soon as I have something to review.

@nicoddemus
Copy link
Member

As #2091 shows, skipped tests no longer add <system-out> and <system-err> to tests, this was introduced in b71add2 by accident and released in 2.9.0.

I say we close this issue as "fixed" and don't bother with a new flag to restore the previous behavior because so far nobody complained. Also it seems to me the original behavior was an accident rather than intentional.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue easy issue that is friendly to new contributor status: help wanted developers would like help from experts on this topic type: proposal proposal for a new feature, often to gather opinions or design the API around the new feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants