Closed pllim closed 1 year ago
Fwiw I think that we should keep this around for interface compatibility.
Well, keeping it around is not the same as actively maintaining it. :wink:
My suggestion is that we keep this as a wrapper to pytest-socket
because the api of this is more aligned to what we need and many many people and tests are using that API already. We can just remove all the inner workings and keep this as a pytest shim.
Re: shim -- Then, the maintenance burden is still there, just a different kind, no? @drdavella , what do you think?
Not sure why you cross-referenced it, it seems to be less well-maintained and feature poorer.
https://pypi.org/project/pytest-network/
Could we maybe just close this issue?
What about the pytest-socket in the original post? Seems to be still active and used by a bunch of other packages, it seems.
Not sure why you cross-referenced it
Sorry for the confusion. I merely wanted to xref for my own future reference.
1) - what is to gain from it, is there feature parity, API compatibility, etc? It's not just about the plugin itself (it doesn't costs much to keep it around in its current state, but a lot of the ecosystem is bought into the usage, and that should be included in any cost estimations) 2) - how much effort it costs to switch, who would do that?
IMO nothing has happened for 4 years for the switching, don't see why it's suddenly become relevant and actionable, especially if there isn't a clear answer for the two questions above. Even just considering the switch costs effort...
@Cadair , has your opinion changed over the years, since it was you who initially brought this up?
Haven't heard anything, so marking this as no-go.
As brought up by @Cadair .
pytest-socket
is at https://github.com/miketheman/pytest-socket . Although it remains to be seen how active the maintainer is.