From da1d5712cf3771de8ebe9fdfffb4c8131329aad7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruno Oliveira Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:15:07 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Fix broken links Fix #857 --- doc/en/faq.txt | 7 ++++--- doc/en/links.inc | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/en/faq.txt b/doc/en/faq.txt index 2f7bd17d2..88ae460e5 100644 --- a/doc/en/faq.txt +++ b/doc/en/faq.txt @@ -106,15 +106,16 @@ Is using pytest fixtures versus xUnit setup a style question? For simple applications and for people experienced with nose_ or unittest-style test setup using `xUnit style setup`_ probably feels natural. For larger test suites, parametrized testing -or setup of complex test resources using funcargs_ may feel more natural. -Moreover, funcargs are ideal for writing advanced test support -code (like e.g. the monkeypatch_, the tmpdir_ or capture_ funcargs) +or setup of complex test resources using fixtures_ may feel more natural. +Moreover, fixtures are ideal for writing advanced test support +code (like e.g. the monkeypatch_, the tmpdir_ or capture_ fixtures) because the support code can register setup/teardown functions in a managed class/module/function scope. .. _monkeypatch: monkeypatch.html .. _tmpdir: tmpdir.html .. _capture: capture.html +.. _fixtures: fixture.html .. _`why pytest_pyfuncarg__ methods?`: diff --git a/doc/en/links.inc b/doc/en/links.inc index 76a2bfd32..3d7863751 100644 --- a/doc/en/links.inc +++ b/doc/en/links.inc @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ .. _`pytest_nose`: plugin/nose.html .. _`reStructured Text`: http://docutils.sourceforge.net .. _`Python debugger`: http://docs.python.org/lib/module-pdb.html -.. _nose: http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/ +.. _nose: https://nose.readthedocs.org/en/latest/ .. _pytest: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pytest .. _mercurial: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ .. _`setuptools`: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools