Skip to content

Conversation

@jbrockmendel
Copy link
Contributor

Most of these tests have uninformative names and no comments, so nothing is lost by parametrizing them.

This shouldn't create merge conflicts with #891 and #892. I'll wait on these three before doing the next round.

Will add a changelog momentarily

Copy link
Member

@pganssle pganssle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor changes on this one.

As an aside, I do think some (maybe many) of these tests can be switched over to being hypothesis tests. We are barely using "can invert strftime for unambiguous format strings" anywhere.

@jbrockmendel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Good ideas all around on the comments, will update.

These tests have uninformative names, so they have been gathered into
three parametetrized tests.
These test that various `strftime` formats are invertable by the parser,
for the chosen date, they are all unambiguous. and independent of time.

In the future, at least some of these can be moved into a property test
that does not hard code the format or the date.
This improves the organization of the test cases and also allows us to
skip all tests requiring TZEnvContext at the class level.
@jbrockmendel
Copy link
Contributor Author

anything else needed/requested for this or #891?

@pganssle
Copy link
Member

@jbrockmendel Heh, just was waiting for CI to pass and then completely forgot about it, thanks for the ping.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants