I just saw the github readme for this project. How is the describe variant different from just grouping the tests together into a module called test_describe_my_function.py and then having smaller named functions inside?
With rspec, you use the describe and context keywords.
At one level, yes, it's mainly syntactical sugar. As the test-writer, the two approaches may seem interchangeable.
Where I find it really helps is when I'm not the test-writer but rather I'm reviewing another developer's tests, say in PR. I find this syntax and hierarchy produces a much more coherent test suite and makes it easier for me to twig different use cases and test quality generally.
> With pytest, it's possible to organize tests in a similar way with classes. However, I think classes are awkward. I don't think the convention of using camel-case names for classes fit very well when testing functions in different cases. In addition, every test function must take a "self" argument that is never used.
So there's no reason to do this, aside from aesthetics.
I'd recommend against doing un-Pythonic stuff like this, it makes your code harder to pick up for new engineers.
And I've never had a problem with reading class names vs. function names; we do that all the time when reading Python code.
I think this is clearly in the realm of subjective preference for what "looks nicer", which I'd call aesthetics.
On the other hand, this probably breaks your IDE's pytest integration, which would be an objective material downside.
Whatever floats your boat though, definitely not a hill I'd die on.