We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
pytest.param
pytest.param is designed for pytest.mark.parametrize.
pytest.mark.parametrize
import pytest @pytest.mark.parametrize( ("arg1", "arg2"), [pytest.param("spam", False), pytest.param("ham", True)], ) def test_foo(arg1: str, arg2: bool) -> None: # noqa: FBT001 pass
Running ruff==0.0.263 on this:
ruff==0.0.263
a.py:5:27: FBT003 Boolean positional value in function call a.py:5:55: FBT003 Boolean positional value in function call
Running flake8==6.0.0 with flake8-boolean-trap==1.0.0 on this, there is no output. Somehow, ruff seems to have a more comprehensive FBT003 checker.
flake8==6.0.0
flake8-boolean-trap==1.0.0
ruff
FBT003
pytest.param doesn't support kwargs, so one has to use boolean positionals. Any thoughts on filtering out FBT003 for pytest.param?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I don't mind filtering it out, I think we already have an allowlist for these.
Sorry, something went wrong.
charliermarsh
Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.
pytest.param
is designed forpytest.mark.parametrize
.Running
ruff==0.0.263
on this:Running
flake8==6.0.0
withflake8-boolean-trap==1.0.0
on this, there is no output. Somehow,ruff
seems to have a more comprehensiveFBT003
checker.pytest.param
doesn't support kwargs, so one has to use boolean positionals. Any thoughts on filtering outFBT003
forpytest.param
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: