Add related and details.rst to 'redundant-unittest-assert' style message's doc #6483
Conversation
DanielNoord
left a comment
DanielNoord
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't really understand the intention of this PR I think. If we want people to know about a similar but different message we could probably add a link in the details.rst of both of these messages.
|
|
||
| def test_division(): | ||
| a = 9 / 3 | ||
| assert "No ZeroDivisionError were raised" # assert-on-string-literal |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why are we adding an example for another message here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added an example expecting this code to raise a [redundant-unittest-assert], but I think those two messages should be the same one. I think it can illustrate the two ways to fix the issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But this example is about unittest assertions, not normal assert. I don't think we should merge those.
| def test_dummy(self): | ||
| actual = "test_result" | ||
| self.assertEqual(actual, "expected") | ||
| # Nothing, as an assert of a string literal will always pass |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I actually kind of like the current example. I think the comment works nicely in details.rst.
|
|
||
| def test_division(): | ||
| a = 9 / 3 | ||
| assert a == 3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we do # nothing above we should also do so here? Note, I actually think we should keep the code instead of the comment.
Pierre-Sassoulas
force-pushed
the
follow-up-to-6475
branch
from
6eb1909 to
e73767a
Compare
DanielNoord
left a comment
DanielNoord
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
details of assert-on-tuple should probably also be updated.
Co-authored-by: Daniël van Noord <[email protected]>
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Co-authored-by: Daniël van Noord <[email protected]>
Pierre-Sassoulas
left a comment
Pierre-Sassoulas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the review @DanielNoord this looks better indeed.
Pierre-Sassoulas
changed the title
2 participants
Type of Changes
Description
Follow up to a late review in #6475. I realized that two very close messages where on two different checkers it's minor and hard to fix (it could be just an old name for 'redundant-unittest-assert' to add to ' assert-on-string-literal' otherwise ).