You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Sometimes it's not necessary to test for all kwargs, just a few specific ones. This can be done now with expect(..).args(.., x=ignore()), but you need to do that for each named parameter. One of the following APIs might be better:
expect(..).args(.., **ignore())
or
expect(..).like(..)
Wouldn't have to re-use ignore in the first case, a new comparator could be introduced. If **ignore() is supported, *ignore() should be as well. That could all be very crazy, but not out of the question.
The second case is something I've thought about for awhile, where it would be a fuzzy match on *a, **k, such that only the first N values in the test case would be compared against *a, and only the named parameters of the test case would be compared against **k.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sometimes it's not necessary to test for all kwargs, just a few specific ones. This can be done now with
expect(..).args(.., x=ignore())
, but you need to do that for each named parameter. One of the following APIs might be better:or
Wouldn't have to re-use
ignore
in the first case, a new comparator could be introduced. If**ignore()
is supported,*ignore()
should be as well. That could all be very crazy, but not out of the question.The second case is something I've thought about for awhile, where it would be a fuzzy match on
*a, **k
, such that only the firstN
values in the test case would be compared against*a
, and only the named parameters of the test case would be compared against**k
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: