replacing __dict__ with an OrderedDict
roy at panix.com
Mon Jan 9 20:05:50 EST 2012
In article <11jrt8-l32.ln1 at satorlaser.homedns.org>,
Ulrich Eckhardt <ulrich.eckhardt at dominolaser.com> wrote:
> > Some people advocate that the test framework should
> > intentionally randomize the order, to flush out inter-test dependencies
> > that the author didn't realize existed (or intend).
> If you now
> happen to influence one test with another and the next run randomizes
> the tests differently, you will never see the fault again. Without this
> reproducability, you don't gain anything but the bad stomach feeling
> that something is wrong.
The standard solution to that is to print out the PRNG initialization
state and provide a way in your test harness to re-initialize it to that
state. I've done things like that in test scenarios where it is
difficult or impossible to cover the problem space deterministically.
> Your unfortunate case is where test X creates persistent state that must
> be present in order for test X+1 to produce meaningful results. This
> kind of dependency obviously blows, as it means you can't debug test X+1
> separately. I'd call this operational dependency.
> This kind of dependency is IMHO a bug in the tests themselves.
For the most part, I'm inclined to agree. However, there are scenarios
where having each test build the required state from scratch is
prohibitively expensive. Imagine if you worked at NASA wanted to run
test_second_stage_ignition(), and test_self_destruct(). I suppose you
could run them in random order, but you'd use up a lot of rockets that
Somewhat more seriously, let's say you wanted to do test queries against
a database with 100 million records in it. You could rebuild the
database from scratch for each test, but doing so might take hours per
test. Sometimes, real life is just *so* inconvenient.
> There is another dependency and that I'd call a logical dependency. This
> occurs when e.g. test X tests for an API presence and test Y tests the
> API behaviour. In other words, Y has no chance to succeed if X already
Sure. I run into that all the time. A trivial example would be the
project I'm working on now. I've come to realize that a long unbroken
string of E's means, "Dummy, you forgot to bring the application server
up before you ran the tests". It would be nicer if the test suite could
have run a single test which proved it could create a TCP connection and
when that failed, just stop.
More information about the Python-list