Closed Aboisier closed 5 years ago
I like the proposed syntax. However, I think having a separate decorator for the timeout (@Timeout
) would be a good solution, too.
I think it's cleaner for regular tests (avoids having to pass empty arguments when we need a timeout but no test name) and also solves this issue.
I really like this solution! I was definitely pretty annoyed by the empty argument.
Implemented in #29 .
The current test case syntax is pretty ugly in my opinion.
I think we can improve this. Here are a few examples of how we could go about it:
I like this syntax, but I'm not sure where we would put the timeout parameter, and we lose the opportunity to have a custom root-test name.
This option solves the name and timeout parameters problem and is still more readable than the current implementation.