-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
fixtures: use a better data structure for storing FixtureDefs #14984
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
Closed
+150
−73
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
854d6d1
fixtures: use the term "visible" instead of "applicable"
bluetech 53fc913
fixtures: document how overrides with the same visibility are ordered
bluetech 516aecd
fixtures: encapsulate access to `FixtureManager._arg2fixturedefs` ins…
bluetech a84e503
fixtures: use a better data structure for storing FixtureDefs
bluetech aeb5b3e
SQUASH: Backward compat for register_fixture with string nodeids
bluetech 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 hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | ||
| Fixed a regression in 9.1.0 that made collection very slow (quadratic) when many fixtures are defined with the same name. | ||
| This can happen particularly when many tests are defined in separate classes which inherit from a base class which defines fixtures (the fixtures are repeated per class). |
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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.
Instead of a separate datastructure, is it possible for us to get the nodeid from the session collection tree? Or perhaps the node might not exist at this point yet?
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.
If you mean that the single data structure will work with nodeids, it's possible and I think it will work, but then we're back to working with nodeids and I want to avoid that.
If you mean going the other way, i.e. getting a Node given a nodeid, we don't have a way to do it other than searching through the collection tree, which will be slow.
I went with a similar solution to what we did for autouse names (
_nodeid_autousenames). In pytest 10.1 we just delete all of that...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.
Yeah I meant the 2nd one (only using Node) -- but I agree with the solution then, as we will eventually just delete the 2nd datastructure once we drop that support. 👍