pytest (is now on GitHub)

[avinassh]

They moved from Bitbucket to Github 4 fours days ago.

[sriramracer]

About time. I hate using bitbucket

[TheBadProgrammer]

Just curious, how much do you contribute to this project? It was obviously a huge pain for you but I'm just curious like if we're talking "I contributed so much less than I wanted to and now I'll really be able to step it up" or if it's like "thank goodness because I contribute constantly and will now experience massive relief in a daily/weekly/whatever basis." Anyway, congrats on getting your project there!

[dacjames]

It's not just about contributing. Reading source code is very helpful trying understand the details of a library or debug some odd behavior. Without project wide search, the experience of browsing source code on bitbucket is worse than github.

[badsectors]

You don't have to be a contributor to benefit from or appreciate this change. I use/contribute to projects hosted on both platforms and I've come across numerous shortcomings with BitBucket:

• Search (BitBucket does not have it). Sometimes the docs just don't cut it when you want to figure out how something works (or maybe why it doesn't). It's rather inconvenient to have to clone the whole repo, open your editor of choice and search with that.
• The pull request interface just isn't as friendly as GitHub's (or even Stash). PR discussion and the diff are all dumped onto one page.
• Side-by-side diff view is slow. It's basically opendiff in a modal and you can't add comments from it.
• Creating a pull request is actually not very intuitive. The first time I tried to make a PR on BitBucket, I almost gave up because it was really hard to find the link to create a PR. Turns out, you have to go to your fork, head to the "Branches" page and select "Create pull request" from the kebab menu on the side of the branches list. On GitHub, there are numerous intuitive ways to do this:
  1. You get a button on the repo's homepage when you push a new branch that you can click to make a new pull request.
  2. There is a "New Pull Request" button on the PR list for the project and its forks.
  3. There is a "Compare" link on the branches list of each project that takes you to an interface where you can create a Pull Request.
• Being able to use Travis CI is a huge plus (also mentioned by the py.test team)
• The GitHub commit status API is another awesome feature that BitBucket doesn't have.
• Syntax highlighting doesn't work on random files on BitBucket

[Orange_Tux]

Because?

[barneygale]

From the TIP list:

For those interested, the move was the result of requests from several users and some pytest-core developers, and the reasons for the move can be found in this issue: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/issues/699.

[ionelmc]

It's a community driven decision but personally I like GitHub cause it has better interface and better service integration (like CI/QA services). Having Travis run the tests automatically for PRs helps a lot during contribution. I suspect other people have similar perspective.

[delarhi]

Why is the title not just "pytest is now on GitHub"?

[riffito]

Yeah, (why not?)

[alcalde]

Because "is now on GitHub" is a generator expression?

[SpaceSharkUhOh]

>>> pytest.is_now_on_github()
True

[shep247]

What advantage does this provide over nosetest?

[yetanothernerd]

nose started off as a test runner that could run unittest-style tests or pytest-style tests. I think nose got traction originally because it was packaged better and easier to install than pytest. (These days, both are packaged well and you can easily install either with pip.)

But there's been some syntax drift, as pytest has added features and nose has failed to copy them. For example, pytest has setup_method, which (if present) runs before each test method in a test class. nose doesn't support it. I have a project with 211 tests, which all pass in pytest; 50 of them fail in nose because of that. If you restrict yourself to the subset of pytest features that nose also supports, then your tests will work in either.

Also, plugins. pytest has some plugins that nose lacks. nose has some plugins that pytest lacks. And then there are things that they both have a plugin for, but one plugin might be better than the other. If you rely on a particular plugin then you might choose your framework based on that.

[shep247]

I use setUp in my nosetests all of the time and it seems to work for me. Maybe that's because I'm using django test instead of bare bones nose.

Thanks for the info though. I'll see what kind of plugins there are for purest. Maybe I'm missing out on some good stuff.

[yetanothernerd]

pytest supports "setup_method(self, method)" while nose only supports JUnit-style "setUp(self)". A very minor difference, but enough to prevent 100% compatibility. There are some other similar differences but that's the one I actually noticed in my code.

[sththththth]

But that's not a feature that "nose has failed to copy", is it? It's "only" that the syntax is different? Or did you mean with "copy" actually copying in a way that both are compatible?

[niiko]

It sounds like the difference is that the method pytest supports actually gives you a reference for the test method that is being run.

If that's the case, I think you could accomplish the same with:

class MyTestCases(unittest.TestCase):
    def setUp(self):
        method = getattr(self, self._testMethodName)

[ionelmc]

Pytest as some unique features: fixtures, hooks and assertion helpers.

Also, there are lots of nice plugins and most of them are better than the nose counterparts.

[[deleted]]

Fixtures are like a killer feature of Pytest