[Patches] [ python-Patches-662807 ] Port tests to unittest
SourceForge.net
noreply@sourceforge.net
Sun, 19 Jan 2003 06:46:35 -0800
Patches item #662807, was opened at 2003-01-05 15:50
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=662807&group_id=5470
Category: Tests
Group: Python 2.3
Status: Open
Resolution: Accepted
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
>Assigned to: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Summary: Port tests to unittest
Initial Comment:
This patch ports the three tests test_pow.py,
test_charmapcodec.py and test_userdict.py to unittest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2003-01-19 09:46
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
All are approved except test_charmapcodec.py --
someone else should look at that one.
Be sure to follow GvR's advice and replace assertEquals
with assertEqual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-16 15:47
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
test_unicode is ported and enhanced (coverage goes from
80.81% to 85.05%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-10 12:17
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
> In general, don't do tests that hardwire implementation
details
So should we remove
self.assertEquals(reduce(42, "1"), "1")
self.assertEquals(reduce(42, "", "1"), "1")
from test_filter?
BTW, you should look at test_builtin first, as the others
are still simply ports to PyUnit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2003-01-10 12:03
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
Good to hear the news on increasing the coverage.
In general, don't do tests that hardwire implementation
details. Test it if it is a documented variable, exposed
through __all__, is a key constact (like the magic numbers
in random.py), or a variable that a module user is likely to
be relying upon. Otherwise, no -- it should be possible to
improve an implementation without crashing the suite.
I'll try to review a few of these over the next few days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-10 11:53
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
test_builtin.py is now updated to test more error
situations. This increases the coverage of bltinmodule.c
from 75.13% to 92.20%, and it actually revealed one or two
potential bugs:
http://www.python.org/sf/665761 and
http://www.python.org/sf/665835
I'm not 100% sure that test_intern() and test_execfile() do
the right thing.
I'm not sure, whether the test script should check for
undocumented implementation artefacts, like:
a = 1
self.assert_(min(a, 1L) is a)
but in this way at least we get notified if something is
changed unintentionally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-08 14:05
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
test_b1 and test_b2 are combined into test_builtin now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum)
Date: 2003-01-08 09:03
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6380
Two random suggestions:
- a blank line before each method, even trivial ones, even
the first one
- use assertEqual, not assertEquals
BTW, I see you've picked up on the convention that unit test
methods should not have doc strings. Good! (But they may
have comments.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-07 11:37
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
test_b1.py has been ported too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Walter Dörwald (doerwalter)
Date: 2003-01-05 15:56
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=89016
The patch is hard to read, so I'll upload all three test scripts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=662807&group_id=5470