Using posargs to pass tests as arguments to tests nox session

[prady0t]

Description

We can now pass specific test names to tests session. Example :
nox -s test -- tests/unit/test_discretisations/test_discretisation.py now only runs tests in test_discretisation.py

[agriyakhetarpal]

Thanks, @prady0t! Could you please document this in the Contributing guide? Edit: also, does this work with a specific test class/case as well, besides a test file?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.46%. Comparing base (fdab3ef) to head (e7c5ed1).
Report is 159 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #4334   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    99.46%   99.46%           
========================================
  Files          289      289           
  Lines        22146    22146           
========================================
  Hits         22027    22027           
  Misses         119      119           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[prady0t]

Thanks, @prady0t! Could you please document this in the Contributing guide? Edit: also, does this work with a specific test class/case as well, besides a test file?

Yes, it will work with a specific test class/case as well. You can try :
nox -s tests -- tests/unit/test_plotting/test_quick_plot.py::TestQuickPlot::test_simple_ode_model
Let me add documentations.

[agriyakhetarpal]

I ran the command, and I think this is a nice improvement for running a selected piece of tests in an isolated virtual environment for local development. That said, it brings a lot of bottlenecks – installing and building PyBaMM is now taking longer than running a bunch of tests :) This might be a good motivator for switching to uv (#3825) sometime soon, both for CI and for our nox configuration.

[prady0t]

I had an eye on that issue and wanted to work on it. Maybe we can also add it to the stretch goal?

[agriyakhetarpal]

I remember @santacodes was working on it some time ago – if he agrees with your proposition, feel free to take over. :) That said, you both can collaborate and work on it together as well if you would like to, either by distributing tasks, preserving co-authorship on commits, or both.

[prady0t]

I remember @santacodes was working on it some time ago – if he agrees with your proposition, feel free to take over. :) That said, you both can collaborate and work on it together as well if you would like to, either by distributing tasks, preserving co-authorship on commits, or both.

That would be nice!

[santacodes]

I remember @santacodes was working on it some time ago – if he agrees with your proposition, feel free to take over. :) That said, you both can collaborate and work on it together as well if you would like to, either by distributing tasks, preserving co-authorship on commits, or both.

Sure, I would love to work with @prady0t, I already had some of the work done on one of my feature branches and then the work was stalled for some time if I remember correctly, I just have to resolve the merge conflicts, and open up a PR.

[prady0t]

I've added the documentation. I think this is ready to be merged.

[arjxn-py]

This failing randomly https://github.com/pybamm-team/PyBaMM/actions/runs/10374501121/job/28722081418?pr=4334#step:11:3610?

[agriyakhetarpal]

Yes, seems to be random