Ronny Pfannschmidt

a key use case for the matching is something like https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest/blob/09a9c6a3dc23c158eb07e1a70cf7bbd4235c6442/src/_pytest/mark/__init__.py#L256-L271 which requires a loop over all items with the matcher exposing the functionality as one off one by one...

@nicoddemus @bluetech some input needed i was thinking we might want to expose Expression under the name MarkExpression and then expand it with `evaluate_markers(item_or_markers: Item|Sequence[Markfoo])` as well as `evaluate_keywords(item: Item)`...

The idea for the exposed api includes some considerations for convenience as for general consumption the additional exposure of the matchers for marks/keyeords and their consequent usage seems cumbersome If...

I believe you overestimate the impact of providing expression Yes it will require some care however it's not deeply embedded

@gomri15 we should discuss in what way we expose the matchers currently in use and what convenience methods may be sensible to make the developer experience good CC @bluetech

Please show where your usecase would happen

@bluetech id like for evaluate as exposed method to be able to take nodes/node keywords and matchers as generic input That way we get ease of use for common use...

I believe the implementation location matters Afair our skip happens before setup I believe unittest skipif is fixture triggered by the integration and ordered after the autouse fixture

we probably ought to consider testpaths for initial condtests, possibly even if thats not part of the command the testroots proposal could also be used (using the testsroots as valid...

Btw does dependabot update those?