-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.8k
closes #8824 Changelog rewording for 7.0 #8826
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
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great work, thanks! Just a couple of small remaining changes, as well as some remaining questions to other maintainers/contributors about things I'm not sure about.
As for dropping #8411, you'll need to remove the changelog/8411.trivial.rst
file entirely (e.g. via git rm
). We also agreed to move #8503 from internal to bugfix, which you can do by renaming 8503.trivial.rst
to 8503.bugfix.rst
(e.g. via git mv
).
changelog/8645.improvement.rst
Outdated
- Allowing no arguments to be passed in order to catch any exception (no argument defaults to `Warning`). | ||
- Emit a deprecation warning if passed `None`. | ||
- Allowing no arguments to be passed in order to catch any exception (no argument defaults to :class:`Warning`). | ||
- Emit a deprecation warning if passed ``None``. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should probably be split off to a separate .deprecation.rst
file? Or perhaps the whole thing should go under deprecations rather than improvements? @Zac-HD @olgarithms what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. I think it probably makes most sense to move this entirely to a .deprecation.rst
file, with a message like
:func:`pytest.warns(None) <pytest.warns>` is now deprecated because many people used
it to mean "this code does not emit warnings", but it actually had the effect of
checking that the code emits at least one warning of any type - like ``pytest.warns()``
or ``pytest.warns(Warning)``.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Happy with this decision too!
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
Fixed issue where `TestCase.setUpClass` is not called when a test has `/` in its name since pytest 6.2.0. | |||
Fixed issue where :meth:`unittest.TestCase.setUpClass` is not called when a test has `/` in its name since pytest 6.2.0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed issue where :meth:`unittest.TestCase.setUpClass` is not called when a test has `/` in its name since pytest 6.2.0. | |
Fixed issue where :meth:`unittest.TestCase.setUpClass` is not called when a test has ``/`` in its name since pytest 6.2.0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Btw, no need to worry about ` vs `` because we configure the docs so they are equivalent:
Lines 102 to 103 in 5016375
# The reST default role (used for this markup: `text`) to use for all documents. | |
default_role = "literal" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMHO we should still be consistent though - right now we use an odd mix of both...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree, just mentioning that to clarify that is not necessary to go hunting for those, unless inclined to spend time on it for consistency reasons, because otherwise the end result is the same.
changelog/8645.improvement.rst
Outdated
- Allowing no arguments to be passed in order to catch any exception (no argument defaults to `Warning`). | ||
- Emit a deprecation warning if passed `None`. | ||
- Allowing no arguments to be passed in order to catch any exception (no argument defaults to :class:`Warning`). | ||
- Emit a deprecation warning if passed ``None``. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. I think it probably makes most sense to move this entirely to a .deprecation.rst
file, with a message like
:func:`pytest.warns(None) <pytest.warns>` is now deprecated because many people used
it to mean "this code does not emit warnings", but it actually had the effect of
checking that the code emits at least one warning of any type - like ``pytest.warns()``
or ``pytest.warns(Warning)``.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One issue left from a quick look, afterwards I think this should be ready!
changelog/8447.deprecation.rst
Outdated
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ | |||
Defining a custom pytest node type which is both an item and a collector now issues a warning. | |||
Defining a custom pytest node type which is both an :class:`pytest.Item <Item>` and a :class:pytest.Collector <Collector>` now issues a warning. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Defining a custom pytest node type which is both an :class:`pytest.Item <Item>` and a :class:pytest.Collector <Collector>` now issues a warning. | |
Defining a custom pytest node type which is both an :class:`pytest.Item <Item>` and a :class:`pytest.Collector <Collector>` now issues a warning. |
Last one hopefully! 🙂
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks great now - thanks a lot @ericluoliu, one step closer to 7.0 again! 🎉
No description provided.