Skip to content
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

only_rerun with exception raised from fixture teardown reruns test but report previous runs as failure #261

Open
shlompy opened this issue Feb 25, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #262

Comments

@shlompy
Copy link

shlompy commented Feb 25, 2024

Hi.
I have a need to do some checks in a fixture teardown to determine whether a test should rerun or not.
Because rerunfailures only allows filtering based on exception, what I had in mind is that to check whatever I want in the fixture and raise the custom exception so the test will rerun.
However, while this package detects a rerun is needed when processing the teardown report, the call (test) report was already processed and it was not marked to be rerun, because the rerun_only condition didn't match the test exception, as the custom exception was raised from the fixture.

Eventually, the test does re-run until it pass, but pytest still report the test failure outcomes.

Note that the reruns works just fine when not using only_rerun condition.

Example code:

import random

import pytest

class MyCustomError(Exception):
    pass

@pytest.fixture
def rerun_custom_checker(request):
    yield

    if request.node.rep_call.outcome == "passed":
        return

    raise MyCustomError()


@pytest.mark.flaky(reruns=10, reruns_delay=1, only_rerun=["MyCustomError"])
def test_example(rerun_custom_checker):

    i = random.randint(2, 4)
    if i != 3:
        assert False
image

What I had in mind, is to pre-process the reports and set a flag whether rerun is needed, if it was found to be needed for setup/call/teardown.
Then, when processing the reports as usual, and just check for this flag.

Something like:
image

I can raise a PR with that change, assuming this solution is acceptable (It works fine when testing this change)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
1 participant