If you're instantiating the same fixture name across a bunch of different tests, using similar fixtures in different locations and not use import or a central or hierarchical location to define your fixtures after you have accumulated a number of similar items, I find it hard to blame the module for not being explicit.
I have to use `pytest --fixtures | less` and search for the fixture's name (or `pytest --fixtures | grep -C 50`)
> If you're instantiating the same fixture name across a bunch of different tests
It means I cannot name my fixture `database`, I have to call it `myplugin_database` instead to make sure it won't conflict with other plugins. And tests using this fixture have the long `myplugin_database` as argument.
Python already had namespaces as first-class citizens, it's a shame we have to go back to name prefixes.
On the subject of implicit vs explicit, `myplugin_database` is unquestionably more explicit.
I wanted to integrate pytest-benchmark[1]. Their docs mention fixtures a couple of times, but the examples only show that test functions receive a magic untyped parameter called "benchmark".
How would I make my usage more explicit? Can I somehow explicitly import the fixture, or at least type it?
[1] https://pytest-benchmark.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
Yes, likewise after you understand how it works. It's great. That's not what I am arguing about.
Pytest could have been designed more explicitly while retaining it's advantages. I am a huge fan of how I can just use "==" operators to test equality. The UX of pytest is great after you know how it works.
The trick might be not using an IDE at all, I consider python and most of its frameworks explicit enough to write with editors like vim. I never found a need to use an IDE for python even when the projects gets larger, because even then the unix tools seemed to work much better at whatever that IDE is doing. This compares sharply against languages in the JVM family.