Feature request: pytest-pylyzer

[nils-werner]

Hey, congratulations on this really impressive and interesting project. I haven't used it yet, but I'll start playing around with it in the next few weeks.

I've noticed one thing that would be nice to have: a pytest plugin, so that I can integrate pylyzer into my test pipeline and make sure I never miss to run it. :-)

Thanks!

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open for 60 days with no activity.

[LoicRiegel]

Hi @nils-werner , I also thought that it was a good idea, so I tried to do it. I've published the first version here: https://pypi.org/project/pytest-pylyzer/. This package is inspired a lot by pytest-ruff.

It's the first time I'm publishing a package, so I'm open for feedback. Tell me what you think if you can try it out.

One thing I already noticed is that is it's slow. On my 5 year-old laptop, it took 35s to run pylyzer against 55 files... not great. I tried to do some benchmarking, tried to compare it with other tools like pytest-ruff for instance, but I don't know if there is an explanation other than the fact that running ruff on a single file takes way less time than pylyzer.

> hyperfine "pylyzer tmp/bad.py" "ruff check tmp/bad.py" -i --runs 30 --warmup 3
Benchmark 1: pylyzer tmp/bad.py
  Time (mean ± σ):     426.6 ms ±  35.6 ms    [User: 70.1 ms, System: 19.6 ms]
  Range (min … max):   410.1 ms … 587.6 ms    30 runs

Benchmark 2: ruff check tmp/bad.py
  Time (mean ± σ):      50.0 ms ±  18.3 ms    [User: 4.4 ms, System: 5.9 ms]
  Range (min … max):    35.9 ms …  95.5 ms    30 runs

Summary
  ruff check tmp/bad.py ran
    8.54 ± 3.21 times faster than pylyzer tmp/bad.py