REF/TST: Add pytest idiom to reshape/test_tile
Hello @gfyoung! Thanks for updating the PR.

 - There are no PEP8 issues in the file [`pandas/tests/reshape/test_cut.py`](https://github.com/gfyoung/pandas/blob/25c680c86d0ac2525d7c45c6ca53150b9cd5fd74/pandas/tests/reshape/test_cut.py) !

 - There are no PEP8 issues in the file [`pandas/tests/reshape/test_qcut.py`](https://github.com/gfyoung/pandas/blob/25c680c86d0ac2525d7c45c6ca53150b9cd5fd74/pandas/tests/reshape/test_qcut.py) !



##### Comment last updated on December 06, 2018 at 05:21 Hours UTC # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#24107](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/commit/b8413746d9d4c4ba6f7a1e694eabf7351f22b1a1?src=pr&el=desc) will **not change** coverage.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&token=eZ4WkYLtcO&height=150&src=pr)](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=tree)

```diff
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #24107   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage    92.2%    92.2%           
=======================================
  Files         162      162           
  Lines       51701    51701           
=======================================
  Hits        47672    47672           
  Misses       4029     4029
```

| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| #multiple | `90.6% <ø> (ø)` | :arrow_up: |
| #single | `43.03% <ø> (ø)` | :arrow_up: |


------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=continue).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=footer). Last update [b841374...25c680c](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/24107?src=pr&el=lastupdated). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).
 can you organize into 3 sections: basic, cut, qcut and either: put each in a class, or just put a section break between (maybe better)? > put each in a class

Kind of defeats the purpose of converting to `pytest` idiom 😉 

I actually think we can just break up into two modules (`test_cut` and `test_qcut`). > Kind of defeats the purpose of converting to `pytest` idiom 😉

What's the reasoning of that? Plenty of examples on their documentation for using classes to organize; curious where its established as non-idiomatic to use classes @gfyoung we do use classes, though I think i prefer separate files generally. for this case could be either way.  > What's the reasoning of that? Plenty of examples on their documentation for using classes to organize

@WillAyd : I'm not saying that classes are not idiomatic.  They are just less pytest-idiomatic than functions.  Functional testing is the core feature of `pytest` (vs. something like `unittest`).

In this case, there was not real reason to have OOP overhead for these tests, and I agree that with @jreback that separate test files would do the trick here. @jreback @WillAyd : I split up the test into two files, which should be a little easier to read.  PTAL. thanks @gfyoung 