Add deprecations for tests written for `nose` by symonk · Pull Request #9907 · pytest-dev/pytest

symonk · 2022-05-01T15:29:49Z

Adds deprecation warnings for tests written in nose, namely around setup and teardown aspects; as we support limited functionality.

I went with a pytest 8.x deprecation as I think that is the norm here. I also notice a few things when reviewing docs locally:

~~my version was showing 6.3.x-dev*~~ was my fault;
tox -e docs does not work in python 3.10+ due to an upstream issue in sphinx/util/typing.py we may need a version bump there? I will chase that up in a second

closes #9886

Todo:

Implement a solution for call_optional(...)
Investigate the mention of @with_setup etc.

symonk · 2022-05-01T15:46:17Z

        return False
    # If there are any problems allow the exception to raise rather than
    # silently ignoring it.
+    warnings.warn(NOSE_SUPPORT, stacklevel=2)


not sure if we can unwind this into a user-space to be more helpful

Indeed, but I think we should at least display the method name (and module), as well as the test that triggered this, if possible.

any preferred way to handle this one @nicoddemus; we have the item in scope when called, could just pass the nodeid into a formattable warning? however some unit tests don't pass that obviously; I'm not sure how many edge cases there can be for this nose stuff; I've everything else fixed up I think but as-is its something like:

def call_optional(obj: object, name: str, nodeid: str) -> bool: method = getattr(obj, name, None) if method is None: return False is_fixture = getfixturemarker(method) is not None if is_fixture: return False if not callable(method): return False # If there are any problems allow the exception to raise rather than # silently ignoring it. warnings.warn(NOSE_SUPPORT.format(nodeid=nodeid, nose_method=name), stacklevel=2) method() return True

which I don't really like; ok to use inspect here to derive some of that info? or perhaps __qualname__ / __module__ would suffice on the existing function obj passed?

Will push what I have for now as I'm out of time today; not happy with it tho so i'm hoping to change the call_optional here still based on your feedback. Please have a look at see what you think the cleanest way to handle that is; will update when I get back, thanks 👍 (I'm expecting some unit test failures now, on the call_optional(...) specifics.

nicoddemus

Thanks @symonk!

Left a few suggestions, please take a look. 👍

nicoddemus · 2022-05-05T12:39:24Z

        return False
    # If there are any problems allow the exception to raise rather than
    # silently ignoring it.
+    warnings.warn(NOSE_SUPPORT, stacklevel=2)


Indeed, but I think we should at least display the method name (and module), as well as the test that triggered this, if possible.

The-Compiler · 2022-05-16T08:39:48Z

Does this only affect @with_setup, or also undecorated plain setup and teardown methods on test classes? The latter is technically part of our nose support, but as far as I'm aware, there are many projects using them with pytest-style tests without being aware that they are supposed to be nose specific...

nicoddemus · 2022-05-16T11:52:05Z

there are many projects using them with pytest-style tests without being aware that they are supposed to be nose specific...

Good point. In that case they will get a warning, and we should mention in the deprecation docs how to port it to use something pytest-native.

nicoddemus · 2022-06-14T10:35:48Z

Moved to 7.2 milestone. 👍

symonk · 2022-06-20T15:30:19Z

Sorry folks, I will get this one wrapped up shortly

nicoddemus · 2022-07-31T13:02:49Z

@symonk gentle ping. 😁

symonk · 2022-08-07T16:09:08Z

@symonk gentle ping. grin

will get a look, thanks!

nicoddemus

Thanks @symonk!

Went ahead and fixed the tests and added information on how to port code in the deprecation docs. 👍

nicoddemus · 2022-09-15T11:47:19Z

@The-Compiler would appreciate a review if possible. 👍

The-Compiler

Seems fine implementation-wise other than a few doc nitpicks (feel free to ignore if you disagree), and perhaps a missing test.

I'm still somewhat lukewarm about dropping bare setup and teardown methods... Unfortunately, I see no easy way to find out how much usage of those there is, as searching for it will of course also pick up fixtures (only limited to repos containing conftest.py to try and avoid unittest.py testsuites).

Maybe we'll just need to do it and see how many people complain...

edit: The more I look at it, the more I seem to see genuine cases of this being used in numpy, celery, ceph, and similar high-profile projects...

The-Compiler · 2022-09-15T16:07:39Z

        from _pytest.python import Instance  # noqa: F401
+
+
+def test_nose_deprecated(pytester: Pytester) -> None:


Should also have a test using bare setup and teardown methods?

Glad you asked this, it was not emitting a warning for setup and teardown 😬

nicoddemus · 2022-09-15T17:17:52Z

edit: The more I look at it, the more I seem to see genuine cases of this being used in numpy, celery, ceph, and similar high-profile projects...

I see, thanks for looking into it.

I strongly believe we should deprecate nose, but given that people have been using setup and teardown for methods thinking this was part of the pytest core feature set, we have a few options:

Go ahead with the deprecation: to be fair it is a simple find/replace, and is backward-compatible with very old pytest versions (ancient versions even).
Make support for setup and teardown methods pytest native, outside nose.

Implementing 2) should be trivial, we already support setup_method and teardown_method named-methods, so it should be just a matter of extending that to setup and teardown names.

Exirel · 2022-09-15T21:23:23Z

Implementing 2) should be trivial, we already support setup_method and teardown_method named-methods, so it should be just a matter of extending that to setup and teardown names.

Hi! Sopel dev here, and here is our story. For the next major release of our IRC Bot, we try to support Python 3.10 and the latest version of pytest. When working on that, we discovered an issue with our test suite: for some unknown reason at the time, pytest would suddenly think that our setup function was now a test hook function. That was very unfortunate for a moment.

We were very happy when we understood the problem, and the solution: we deactivated the nose plugin, and all our problems went away.

So, from our perspective, we are fine with the following options:

remove the nose plugin from pytest
keep the plugin, but make sure we can deactivate it
officially support setup/teardown function, but making sure it is configurable (opt-out, opt-in, regex pattern, etc.)

Basically: we really need to make sure we can still run pytest without having to change our codebase, or our user's codebase, to accommodate for something that was not, as far as I know, officially documented (at least until now).

nicoddemus · 2022-09-15T23:48:08Z

officially support setup/teardown function, but making sure it is configurable (opt-out, opt-in, regex pattern, etc.)

Just to make it clear, my proposal is to support setup/teardown methods, not functions. IIUC that would not affect your test suite, right?

Exirel · 2022-09-16T08:56:48Z

to support setup/teardown methods, not functions.

Oh! You're right, I was worried about functions, not methods. In that case, and since pytest has a configuration for class naming convention, we would not have any problem with that. Thanks for the clarification. 👍

nicoddemus · 2022-09-16T11:46:48Z

Thanks @Exirel for the feedback! 👍

I updated my original post to make it clearer too.

nicoddemus · 2022-10-09T13:12:53Z

@The-Compiler what do you think regarding #9907 (comment)?

I'm leaning towards 1), mostly because we are showing a deprecation, and the fix is trivial by doing a simple find/replace.

nicoddemus · 2022-10-09T13:47:02Z

The warning message now includes the text To remove this warning, rename it to '{method}_method(self) for plain setup/teardown methods.

The-Compiler · 2022-10-09T14:38:25Z

@The-Compiler what do you think regarding #9907 (comment)?

I'm leaning towards 1), mostly because we are showing a deprecation, and the fix is trivial by doing a simple find/replace.

Seems fine to me, though I see one problem: Once the deprecation period is over, it turns into a silent failure, depending on what the user does in those methods.

nicoddemus · 2022-10-09T15:14:21Z

Seems fine to me, though I see one problem: Once the deprecation period is over, it turns into a silent failure, depending on what the user does in those methods.

Yeah I agree it is not perfect, unfortunately.

We should make a point to add a big note to the release notes when we drop the functionality, I think is the best we can do.

nicoddemus · 2022-10-09T15:14:57Z

Btw @The-Compiler could you give this another pass over? Thanks!

The-Compiler

Looks great! Just a few small doc comments. Don't feel strongly about them, except the changelog one.

The-Compiler · 2022-10-09T15:18:27Z

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+The functionality for running tests written for ``nose`` has been officially deprecated.


This should be a bit more verbose: It should point out that this also includes setup and teardown methods (since users don't seem to be aware of that being a nose thing), and it should have a link to the detailed deprecation docs.

Indeed, done. 👍

nicoddemus · 2022-10-09T20:16:51Z

Thanks @symonk and @The-Compiler!

Fixes pytest-dev#9886

symonk added 2 commits May 1, 2022 16:21

pytest-dev#9886-deprecate-nose-support

b5c7a6d

update docs to reflect nose support deprecation

ed7cb8e

symonk requested a review from nicoddemus May 1, 2022 15:29

symonk commented May 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

Comment thread doc/en/deprecations.rst Outdated

update nose deprecation version in docs

dbdb62c

symonk commented May 1, 2022

View reviewed changes

nicoddemus requested changes May 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

nicoddemus added this to the 7.2 milestone Jun 14, 2022

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view

symonk added 2 commits August 7, 2022 17:18

Merge branch 'main' into deprecate-nose-plugin

c3c48ff

merge upstream master and improve docs for nose support deprecations

564b5b0

dgw mentioned this pull request Aug 11, 2022

No CI for Python 3.10 yet sopel-irc/sopel#2274

Closed

nicoddemus added 3 commits September 15, 2022 08:05

Fix two test failures

5ee703c

Move test to deprecated_test and improve message

24306f2

Improve deprecation docs

02e2810

nicoddemus requested a review from The-Compiler September 15, 2022 11:46

nicoddemus approved these changes Sep 15, 2022

View reviewed changes

nicoddemus changed the title ~~Add deprecations for tests written for nose~~ Add deprecations for tests written for nose [SQUASH] Sep 15, 2022

The-Compiler requested changes Sep 15, 2022

View reviewed changes

nicoddemus added 2 commits October 9, 2022 10:43

Emit nose deprecation warnings for plain setup/teardown methods

370df81

Add __pycache__ directories to gitignore

333c548

nicoddemus requested a review from The-Compiler October 9, 2022 13:47

The-Compiler requested changes Oct 9, 2022

View reviewed changes

Code review requests

c88e6b6

nicoddemus changed the title ~~Add deprecations for tests written for nose [SQUASH]~~ Add deprecations for tests written for nose Oct 9, 2022

nicoddemus merged commit 3bf2bc5 into pytest-dev:main Oct 9, 2022

dwhswenson mentioned this pull request Oct 27, 2022

refactor nose tests to pytest style OpenFreeEnergy/openfe#199

Closed

imgbot Bot pushed a commit to kkipngenokoech/pytest that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2026

Add deprecations for tests written for nose (pytest-dev#9907)

f85208d

Fixes pytest-dev#9886

imgbot Bot pushed a commit to kkipngenokoech/pytest that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2026

Add deprecations for tests written for nose (pytest-dev#9907)

b8c0f20

Fixes pytest-dev#9886

		from _pytest.python import Instance # noqa: F401


		def test_nose_deprecated(pytester: Pytester) -> None:

		@@ -0,0 +1 @@
		The functionality for running tests written for ``nose`` has been officially deprecated.

Uh oh!

Conversation

symonk commented May 1, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

symonk May 1, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicoddemus May 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

symonk Aug 7, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicoddemus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicoddemus May 5, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

The-Compiler commented May 16, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented May 16, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Jun 14, 2022

Uh oh!

symonk commented Jun 20, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Jul 31, 2022

Uh oh!

symonk commented Aug 7, 2022

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as spam.

nicoddemus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Sep 15, 2022

Uh oh!

The-Compiler left a comment • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

The-Compiler Sep 15, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicoddemus Oct 9, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Sep 15, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Exirel commented Sep 15, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Sep 15, 2022

Uh oh!

Exirel commented Sep 16, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Sep 16, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Oct 9, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Oct 9, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

The-Compiler commented Oct 9, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Oct 9, 2022

Uh oh!

nicoddemus commented Oct 9, 2022

Uh oh!

The-Compiler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

symonk commented May 1, 2022 •

edited

Loading

symonk Aug 7, 2022 •

edited

Loading

The-Compiler left a comment •

edited

Loading

nicoddemus commented Sep 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

nicoddemus commented Sep 16, 2022 •

edited

Loading

nicoddemus commented Oct 9, 2022 •

edited

Loading