-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 529
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
Allow running commands before and after running tests in all environments #275
Comments
Original comment by @hynek I’ve tried to understand what runtest_pre/post does by jumping through the commits and it seems to allow per-env hooks and not hooks for “before anything happens” and ”after everything is done”. Am I missing something? Are there any docs I haven’t found? |
Original comment by @schinckel I have a new pull request #193 which does the per-venv stuff related to this. I'm not 100% sure where the "overall" hooks should go though. |
Original comment by @schinckel I'm not sure it's only relevant to detox: I have a similar patch (that I'll update to match the requirements detailed from PR175) that allows me to report each venv as a seperate "build" back to bitbucket. |
Original comment by @hpk42 @Itxaka i am slowly getting back to tox issues FWIW. There are a few people who do good PRs but not yet others who review and merge PRs, handle other's issues, do releases etc. As to this issue here it guess it makes sense to introduce and document hooks. I am happy about a PR (referencing this issue275) -- you could start with just putting up your tox-plus as a PR unchanged to see what you changed. We can take it from there. |
Original comment by @Itxaka As this repo moves a bit slow, and we needed this at work, I half implemented it on https://github.com/Itxaka/tox-plus as plugin hooks so there could be plugins hijacking it to do that stuff. |
Original comment by @aldanor Yea, this would be very useful in general -- some setup like Should it be completely unconditional though? E.g., you may want to run Maybe the better naming would be something like |
This is only relevant for detox. Beside
envlist
, we could introducesetupenv
andbreakdownenv
.This could be useful to combine the coverage data for projects with a unified Python 2/3 codebase. In this case coverage can never be 100% due to Python 2/3-specific code paths, so it makes sense to combine them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: