-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 917
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
Expose get_json_object_options to Python #11180
Merged
rapids-bot
merged 9 commits into
rapidsai:branch-22.08
from
SrikarVanavasam:get_json_object_options_python
Jul 11, 2022
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
412ae7a
get_json_object_options
SrikarVanavasam 7291173
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/branch-22.08' into get_json_obje…
SrikarVanavasam b271bc8
Merge branch 'branch-22.08' into get_json_object_options_python
SrikarVanavasam b638122
Merge branch 'branch-22.08' into get_json_object_options_python
SrikarVanavasam dc54be1
Added tests
SrikarVanavasam 1c67a02
check-style
SrikarVanavasam a54aa9c
reviewer feedback
SrikarVanavasam 4bcabb6
GetJsonObjectOptions constructor
SrikarVanavasam 3b9f14f
make GetJsonObjectOptions ctor keyword-only
SrikarVanavasam File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Perhaps prefer
To avoid repeating the definition of the series object in each test.
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.
Good suggestion. @vyasr would this be in line with the recommendations for writing test? Or would this be better written in a
pytest-case
?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.
I think @wence-'s suggestion is already a big improvement here. I would indeed prefer to use cases, but before making the argument for, I want to be clear on the fact that the difference between cases and fixtures is almost entirely one of semantics and providing nicer syntactic sugar. @wence- perhaps the discussion will help you give me some suggestions on how to improve with regards to your comment on my other PR, or maybe it'll provide you ammunition for a counterpoint that makes me change my mind!
Here's how I would write something like this with cases:
Some notes:
test_foo.py
cases will be automatically detected fromtest_foo_cases.py
. This has the benefit of enforcing some organization that you would otherwise have to do manually. The alternatives are cluttering the test file (or worse, conftest.py).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.
So let me see if I understand. In this instance, I think there is no difference in the behaviour. So I will try and explain what I think and then provide an example that shows differences?
A
pytest.fixture
is requested by a test by name.So any parametrisation of fixtures happens by params:
In the example we're discussing, the object we're testing is not parameterised by anything, so we're using a fixture for OAOO, and to avoid eager initialisation. This is better than just defining a module-level variable in a number of ways (including that the object is recreated for each test in turn, so stateful modifications between tests are not a problem).
In contrast, I think for the
pytest-cases
approach if I want a test argument to take multiple values I would write separate cases:So I can create a bunch of test cases and then select how I use them in my test functions.
So now my fixtures can have descriptive names, but I can bind them locally in the test to something short: I agree this makes fixtures more self-documenting.
I guess the other big thing that pytest-cases brings is that it augments the algebra of parameterized fixtures to union of sets rather than only cartesian product (though we're not using that here).
So. In sum, I can see the advantages for cases in the general case (hah!) when building lots of fixtures that one will use for many test functions (and need to manipulate in various ways).
In this particular instance, I'm not sold on it, since it seems to introduce more boilerplate than really necessary. Perhaps just using
@fixture
frompytest-cases
rather thanpytest
would be reasonable in this case.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.
Just to clarify, the boilerplate that you're referring to is the need to decorate each function with
parametrize_with_cases
, right? And there's not much benefit here because 1) we only have a single case, and 2) the exact same case is used in a large number of tests? If so, I think that I agree.Using some of your points, let's try to come up with some reasonable guidelines for when using cases vs fixtures.
Use fixtures when:
Use cases when:
simplecomplex parametrizations.We would also need to clearly define "simple parametrization". To me, it's something where a single scalar parameter varies, and where that parameter is directly passed to some other function (like a constructor). Something like this:
would constitute a fixture that should instead be implemented as separate cases.
Do these align with your expectations @wence- ?
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.
Yes, I think that's what I expect. Although I note that the last two points of the "use X when:" lists are the same, was the cases one meant to say "complex parameterizations" ?
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.
Correct, that is what I meant. Fixed.