I've confirmed that prior to the patch in PR 30194, the location of the failure was indeed reported. It was just not reported on the same line:

```
cpython main $ git log -1
commit 3e93af0b06cada874c4a16868b6f863b599919f2 (HEAD -> main)
Author: Jason R. Coombs <jaraco@jaraco.com>
Date:   Sat Mar 26 10:45:58 2022 -0400

    Revert "bpo-46126: Disable 'descriptions' when running tests internally. (GH-30194)"
    
    This reverts commit a941e5927f7f2540946813606c61c6aea38db426.
cpython main $ git diff
diff --git a/Lib/test/test_importlib/test_metadata_api.py b/Lib/test/test_importlib/test_metadata_api.py
index b3627cbb75..7e3bb09cf2 100644
--- a/Lib/test/test_importlib/test_metadata_api.py
+++ b/Lib/test/test_importlib/test_metadata_api.py
@@ -90,8 +90,11 @@ def test_entry_points_distribution(self):
             self.assertEqual(ep.dist.version, "1.0.0")
 
     def test_entry_points_unique_packages(self):
-        # Entry points should only be exposed for the first package
-        # on sys.path with a given name.
+        """
+        Entry points should only be exposed for the first package
+        on sys.path with a given name.
+        """
+        raise ValueError("Failing on purpose")
         alt_site_dir = self.fixtures.enter_context(fixtures.tempdir())
         self.fixtures.enter_context(self.add_sys_path(alt_site_dir))
         alt_pkg = {
cpython main $ ./python.exe -E -We -m test -v test_importlib | grep entry_points_unique_packages
test_entry_points_unique_packages (test.test_importlib.test_metadata_api.APITests)
ERROR: test_entry_points_unique_packages (test.test_importlib.test_metadata_api.APITests)
  File "/Users/jaraco/code/public/cpython/Lib/test/test_importlib/test_metadata_api.py", line 97, in test_entry_points_unique_packages
test test_importlib failed
```

The description is given _in addition_ to the location of the test.

That means the concern reported in #302 was actually invalid.

I also was under the false impression that the description was masking the test location, but instead, it's just enhancing it (while also injecting a newline).

Given this renewed understanding, I believe it's appropriate to back out the PR.

> I think the situation and the discussion should be summarized on python-dev!

Great suggestion. Will do.