fix: check common name for incompatible plugin - #294
Conversation
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree [company="JamesYFC"] |
|
@microsoft-github-policy-service agree |
Dmitry Gozman (dgozman)
left a comment
Dmitry Gozman (dgozman)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the PR, this is fantastic!
I am very sorry that this PR slipped through our triage process, and nobody looked at it. I've only got a minor comment, and would totally understand if you don't have cycles to update this PR anymore.
In any case, thank you for contributing!
| # Check for incompatible async plugin with canonical name | ||
| if pluginmanager.has_plugin(PW_ASYNC_CANONICAL_NAME): | ||
| raise RuntimeError( | ||
| "pytest-playwright and pytest-playwright-asyncio are not compatible. Please use only one of them." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: use PLUGIN_INCOMPATIBLE_MESSAGE here as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch!
a61b1fd to
a84cedf
Compare
|
Thanks for the kind reply. I've amended my commit for your viewing pleasure :) |
Dmitry Gozman (dgozman)
left a comment
Dmitry Gozman (dgozman)
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great, merging in.
2 participants
Currently, the plugins check for the full names of the other plugin (
pytest_playwright.pytest_playwrightin async, andpytest_playwright_asyncio.pytest_playwrightin sync) against thePytestPluginManager's name-to-plugindict, in order to error if the other, incompatible, plugin has been loaded.However, in my project (and it seems like this is pretty common), plugins will be registered under the "common" name:
And so this will fail to raise the error, and we will get this one instead which is much less helpful:
This PR does an additional check for the "common" name, and then checks that the plugin itself has the matching canonical name, which should now handle this case.
As far as I can see, I couldn't find a decent way to register a plugin under a different name as part of the
pytestinvocation, and so I haven't added the additional test case.In the given example above though, this now gives us the expected error:
