This type was actually in `_pytest.skipping` previously, but was moved to
`_pytest.mark.evaluate` in cf40c0743c.
I think the previous location was more appropriate, because the
`MarkEvaluator` is not a generic mark facility, it is explicitly and
exclusively used by the `skipif` and `xfail` marks to evaluate their
particular set of arguments. So it is better to put it in the plugin
code.
Putting `skipping` related functionality into the core `_pytest.mark`
module also causes some import cycles which we can avoid.
`@pytest.mark.xfail` is meant to work with arbitrary items, and there is
a test `test_mark_xfail_item` which verifies this.
However, the code for some reason uses `pytest_pyfunc_call` for the
call phase check, which only works for Function items. The test
mentioned above only passed "accidentally" because the
`pytest_runtest_makereport` hook also runs a `evalxfail.istrue()` which
triggers and evaluation, but conceptually it shouldn't do that.
Change to `pytest_runtest_call` to make the xfail checking properly
generic.
While working on improving the documentation of the
`pytest_runtest_setup` hook, I came up with this text:
> Called to perform the setup phase of the test item.
>
> The default implementation runs ``setup()`` on item and all of its
> parents (which haven't been setup yet). This includes obtaining the
> values of fixtures required by the item (which haven't been obtained
> yet).
But upon closer inspection I noticed this line at the start of
`SetupState.prepare` (which is what does the actual work for
`pytest_runtest_setup`):
self._teardown_towards(needed_collectors)
which implies that the setup phase of one item might trigger teardowns
of *previous* items. This complicates the simple explanation. It also
seems like a completely undesirable thing to do, because it breaks
isolation between tests -- e.g. a failed teardown of one item shouldn't
cause the failure of some other items just because it happens to run
after it.
So the first thing I tried was to remove that line and see if anything
breaks -- nothing did. At least pytest's own test suite runs fine. So
maybe it's just dead code?
Ran Benita
Gleb Nikonorov
Andrew
Bruno Oliveira
Ronny Pfannschmidt
Ram Rachum
Zac Hatfield-Dodds
Zac-HD
ibriquem
piotrhm
Prashant Anand
Fabio Zadrozny