I am looking to automate the process where:
I run some python code,
then run a set of tests using pytest
then, if all tests are validated, start the process again with new data.
I am thinking of writing a script executing the python code, then calling pytest using pytest.main(), check with the help of the exit code that all tests passed and in case of success start again.
The issue is that it is stated in pytest docs (https://docs.pytest.org/en/stable/usage.html) that it is not recommended to make multiple calls to pytest.main():
Note from pytest docs:
"Calling pytest.main() will result in importing your tests and any modules that they import. Due to the caching mechanism of python’s import system, making subsequent calls to pytest.main() from the same process will not reflect changes to those files between the calls. For this reason, making multiple calls to pytest.main() from the same process (in order to re-run tests, for example) is not recommended."
I was woundering if it was ok to call pytest.main() the way I intend to or if there was any better way to achieve what I am looking for?
I've made a simple example to make it problem more clear:
A = [0]
def some_action(x):
x[0] += 1
if __name__ == '__main__':
print('Initial value of A: {}'.format(A))
for i in range(10):
if i == 5:
# one test in test_mock2 that fails
test_dir = "./tests/functional_tests/test_mock2.py"
else:
# two tests in test_mock that pass
test_dir = "./tests/functional_tests/test_mock.py"
some_action(A)
check_tests = int(pytest.main(["-q", "--tb=no", test_dir]))
if check_tests != 0:
print('Interrupted at i={} because of tests failures'.format(i))
break
if i > 5:
print('All tests validated, final value of A: {}'.format(A))
else:
print('final value of A: {}'.format(A))
In this example some_action is executed until i reaches 5, at which point the tests fail and the process of executing/testing is interrupted. It seems to work fine, I'm only concerned because of the comments in pytest docs as stated above
The warning applies to the following sequence of events:
Run pytest.main on some folder which imports a.py, directly or indirectly.
Modify a.py (manually or programatically).
Attempt to rerun pytest.main on the same directory in the same python process as #1
The second run in step #3 will not not see the changes you made to a.py in step #2. That is because python does not import a file twice. Instead, it will check if the file has an entry in sys.modules, and use that instead. It's what lets you import large libraries multiple times without incurring a huge penalty every time.
Modifying the values in imported modules is fine. Python binds names to references, so if you bind something (like a new integer value) to the right name, everyone will be able to see it. Your some_action function is a good example of this. Future tests will run with the modified value if they import your script as a module.
The reason that the caveat is there is that pytest is usually used to test code after it has been modified. The warning is simply telling you that if you modify your code, you need to start pytest.main in a new python process to see the changes.
Since you do not appear to be modifying the code of the files in your test and expecting the changes to show up, the caveat you cite does not apply to you. Keep doing what you are doing.
I'm currently writing a module which uses console_script in setup.py to create scripts at installation time. For performing the tests I use the plugin pytest-console-scripts to execute those scripts. One of the functions I want to test involves a input() call to get an anwer from the user ('y'es or 'n'o). But I do not have any idea on how to mock this input.
A sample test using pytest-console-scripts looks like:
import pytest
def test_my_function(script_runner):
# first option is the console script to be run followed by arguments
ret = script_runner.run('myscript', '--version')
assert ret.success
This can be used when the console script does not involve user action. How can this be solved?
Many thanks in advance, regards, Thomas
EDIT: the provided solutions in How to test a function with input call may solve my question only partially. My intention is to test the functionality through the console script, but not importing the module containing the function called through that script - if this is possible.
After investigating a lot more through Google I came across a solution, which worked perfectly for me:
# pip install pytest-mock pytest-console-scripts
...
def test_user_input(script_runner, mocker):
# optional use side_effect with any kind of value you try to give to
# your tested function
mocker.patch('builtins.input', return_value='<your_expected_input>')
# use side_effect=<values> instead if you want to insert more than one value
# Options have to be seperated
# Example: ('my_prog', '-a', 'val_a', '-b', 'val_b')
# or: ('my_prog', '-a val_a -b val_b'.split(' '))
ret = script_runner.run('my_prog')
assert ret.success
assert ret.stdout == <whatever>
# or assert 'string' in ret.stdout
See https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#unittest.mock.Mock.side_effect for further possibilities of how to use side_effect.
I've written a module to be installed via pip with a dir structure like:
bin/myapp
src/mymodule
src/mymodule/__init__.py
src/mymodule/config.py
src/mymodule/file1.py
src/mymodule/file2.py
tests/func/
tests/unit/file1/test_func1.py
tests/unit/file1/test_func2.py
tests/unit/file2/test_func1.py
setup.py
setup.cfg
setup.py contains:
scripts=['bin/myapp'],
myapp imports mymodule and is the "wrapper" script that executes the module code as needed. e.g. myapp contains:
import mymodule
def main(config_file):
mymodule.read_config(config_file)
...
mymodule.do_something_else
...
if __name__ == '__main__':
...
main(config_file)
I want to write a test under 'func/' (func/test_myapp.py) that will setup a directory structure and then execute "myapp" which calls my module for an end to end test (I will need to mock some functions as they do call real executables that wont exist on a test machine).
But I cant seem to find a good article that tells me how to import 'bin/myapp' so that it can be tested.
Any help is appreciated.
P.S. Code example must be compatible with both 2.7 and 3.x hence both are tagged.
Instead of putting logic in bin/myapp, put one or more functions in mymodule/cli.py and use an entrypoint: https://packaging.python.org/specifications/entry-points/
You'll minimize the boilerplate you write and the logic will be importable in your tests and for anyone else who installs the package - you may find it more convenient to call the function directly in some cases than shell out if you want more explicit control in other clients.
Your exact question of testing is addressed here as well: http://python-packaging.readthedocs.io/en/latest/command-line-scripts.html#the-console-scripts-entry-point
one way to do it might be to subprocess the bin in the test, and then test each expected item after the bin is done executing. so like in test_func1.py
something like
import subprocess
def test1():
stdout = subprocess.check_output(['bin/myapp'])
assert os.listdir('./newfolder') == ['blah1', 'blah2']
assert stdout == '''some expected output'''
has the benefit of being closer to an integration test, but also has the downside of actually being closer to an integration test so might need to clean after testing.
or you can:
def test1():
from myapp import main
assert main()
I am working on a python Command-Line-Interface program, and I find it boring when doing testings, for example, here is the help information of the program:
usage: pyconv [-h] [-f ENCODING] [-t ENCODING] [-o file_path] file_path
Convert text file from one encoding to another.
positional arguments:
file_path
optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-f ENCODING, --from ENCODING
Encoding of source file
-t ENCODING, --to ENCODING
Encoding you want
-o file_path, --output file_path
Output file path
When I made changes on the program and want to test something, I must open a terminal,
type the command(with options and arguments), type enter, and see if any error occurs
while running. If error really occurs, I must go back to the editor and check the code
from top to end, guessing where the bug positions, make small changes, write print lines,
return to the terminal, run command again...
Recursively.
So my question is, what is the best way to do testing with CLI program, can it be as easy
as unit testing with normal python scripts?
I think it's perfectly fine to test functionally on a whole-program level. It's still possible to test one aspect/option per test. This way you can be sure that the program really works as a whole. Writing unit-tests usually means that you get to execute your tests quicker and that failures are usually easier to interpret/understand. But unit-tests are typically more tied to the program structure, requiring more refactoring effort when you internally change things.
Anyway, using py.test, here is a little example for testing a latin1 to utf8 conversion for pyconv::
# content of test_pyconv.py
import pytest
# we reuse a bit of pytest's own testing machinery, this should eventually come
# from a separatedly installable pytest-cli plugin.
pytest_plugins = ["pytester"]
#pytest.fixture
def run(testdir):
def do_run(*args):
args = ["pyconv"] + list(args)
return testdir._run(*args)
return do_run
def test_pyconv_latin1_to_utf8(tmpdir, run):
input = tmpdir.join("example.txt")
content = unicode("\xc3\xa4\xc3\xb6", "latin1")
with input.open("wb") as f:
f.write(content.encode("latin1"))
output = tmpdir.join("example.txt.utf8")
result = run("-flatin1", "-tutf8", input, "-o", output)
assert result.ret == 0
with output.open("rb") as f:
newcontent = f.read()
assert content.encode("utf8") == newcontent
After installing pytest ("pip install pytest") you can run it like this::
$ py.test test_pyconv.py
=========================== test session starts ============================
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.3 -- pytest-2.4.5dev1
collected 1 items
test_pyconv.py .
========================= 1 passed in 0.40 seconds =========================
The example reuses some internal machinery of pytest's own testing by leveraging pytest's fixture mechanism, see http://pytest.org/latest/fixture.html. If you forget about the details for a moment, you can just work from the fact that "run" and "tmpdir" are provided for helping you to prepare and run tests. If you want to play, you can try to insert a failing assert-statement or simply "assert 0" and then look at the traceback or issue "py.test --pdb" to enter a python prompt.
Start from the user interface with functional tests and work down towards unit tests. It can feel difficult, especially when you use the argparse module or the click package, which take control of the application entry point.
The cli-test-helpers Python package has examples and helper functions (context managers) for a holistic approach on writing tests for your CLI. It's a simple idea, and one that works perfectly with TDD:
Start with functional tests (to ensure your user interface definition) and
Work towards unit tests (to ensure your implementation contracts)
Functional tests
NOTE: I assume you develop code that is deployed with a setup.py file or is run as a module (-m).
Is the entrypoint script installed? (tests the configuration in your setup.py)
Can this package be run as a Python module? (i.e. without having to be installed)
Is command XYZ available? etc. Cover your entire CLI usage here!
Those tests are simplistic: They run the shell command you would enter in the terminal, e.g.
def test_entrypoint():
exit_status = os.system('foobar --help')
assert exit_status == 0
Note the trick to use a non-destructive operation (e.g. --help or --version) as we can't mock anything with this approach.
Towards unit tests
To test single aspects inside the application you will need to mimic things like command line arguments and maybe environment variables. You will also need to catch the exiting of your script to avoid the tests to fail for SystemExit exceptions.
Example with ArgvContext to mimic command line arguments:
#patch('foobar.command.baz')
def test_cli_command(mock_command):
"""Is the correct code called when invoked via the CLI?"""
with ArgvContext('foobar', 'baz'), pytest.raises(SystemExit):
foobar.cli.main()
assert mock_command.called
Note that we mock the function that we want our CLI framework (click in this example) to call, and that we catch SystemExit that the framework naturally raises. The context managers are provided by cli-test-helpers and pytest.
Unit tests
The rest is business as usual. With the above two strategies we've overcome the control a CLI framework may have taken away from us. The rest is usual unit testing. TDD-style hopefully.
Disclosure: I am the author of the cli-test-helpers Python package.
So my question is, what is the best way to do testing with CLI program, can it be as easy as unit testing with normal python scripts?
The only difference is that when you run Python module as a script, its __name__ attribute is set to '__main__'. So generally, if you intend to run your script from command line it should have following form:
import sys
# function and class definitions, etc.
# ...
def foo(arg):
pass
def main():
"""Entry point to the script"""
# Do parsing of command line arguments and other stuff here. And then
# make calls to whatever functions and classes that are defined in your
# module. For example:
foo(sys.argv[1])
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Now there is no difference, how you would use it: as a script or as a module. So inside your unit-testing code you can just import foo function, call it and make any assertions you want.
Maybe too little too late,
but you can always use
import os.system
result = os.system(<'Insert your command with options here'>
assert(0 == result)
In that way, you can run your program as if it was from command line, and evaluate the exit code.
(Update after I studied pytest)
You can also use capsys.
(from running pytest --fixtures)
capsys
Enable text capturing of writes to sys.stdout and sys.stderr.
The captured output is made available via ``capsys.readouterr()`` method
calls, which return a ``(out, err)`` namedtuple.
``out`` and ``err`` will be ``text`` objects.
This isn't for Python specifically, but what I do to test command-line scripts is to run them with various predetermined inputs and options and store the correct output in a file. Then, to test them when I make changes, I simply run the new script and pipe the output into diff correct_output -. If the files are the same, it outputs nothing. If they're different, it shows you where. This will only work if you are on Linux or OS X; on Windows, you will have to get MSYS.
Example:
python mycliprogram --someoption "some input" | diff correct_output -
To make it even easier, you can add all these test runs to your 'make test' Makefile target, which I assume you already have. ;)
If you are running many of these at once, you could make it a little more obvious where each one ends by adding a fail tag:
python mycliprogram --someoption "some input" | diff correct_output - || tput setaf 1 && echo "FAILED"
The short answer is yes, you can use unit tests, and should. If your code is well structured, it should be quite easy to test each component separately, and if you need to to can always mock sys.argv to simulate running it with different arguments.
pytest-console-scripts is a Pytest plugin for testing python scripts installed via console_scripts entry point of setup.py.
For Python 3.5+, you can use the simpler subprocess.run to call your CLI command from your test.
Using pytest:
import subprocess
def test_command__works_properly():
try:
result = subprocess.run(['command', '--argument', 'value'], check=True, capture_output=True, text=True)
except subprocess.CalledProcessError as error:
print(error.stdout)
print(error.stderr)
raise error
The output can be accessed via result.stdout, result.stderr, and result.returncode if needed.
The check parameter causes an exception to be raised if an error occurs. Note Python 3.7+ is required for the capture_output and text parameters, which simplify capturing and reading stdout/stderr.
Given that you are explicitly asking about testing for a command line application, I believe that you are aware of unit-testing tools in python and that you are actually looking for a tool to automate end-to-end tests of a command line tool. There are a couple of tools out there that are specifically designed for that. If you are looking for something that's pip-installable, I would recommend cram. It integrates well with the rest of the python environment (e.g. through a pytest extension) and it's quite easy to use:
Simply write the commands you want to run prepended with $ and the expected output prepended with . For example, the following would be a valid cram test:
$ echo Hello
Hello
By having four spaces in front of expected output and two in front of the test, you can actually use these tests to also write documentation. More on that on the website.
You can use standard unittest module:
# python -m unittest <test module>
or use nose as a testing framework. Just write classic unittest files in separate directory and run:
# nosetests <test modules directory>
Writing unittests is easy. Just follow online manual for unittesting
I would not test the program as a whole this is not a good test strategy and may not actually catch the actual spot of the error. The CLI interface is just front end to an API. You test the API via your unit tests and then when you make a change to a specific part you have a test case to exercise that change.
So, restructure your application so that you test the API and not the application it self. But, you can have a functional test that actually does run the full application and checks that the output is correct.
In short, yes testing the code is the same as testing any other code, but you must test the individual parts rather than their combination as a whole to ensure that your changes do not break everything.
I'll quickly explain exactly what I mean by this.
I'm working on a project using python, where I have multiple modules doing segments of work. Let's say for example I have a module called Parser.py and this module has a function parseFile() which my main module Main.py calls in order to parse some files.
As of right now, I'm using a main method inside of the Parser.py
if __name__ == "__main__":
line_list = parseFile(sys.argv[1])
out_file = open(sys.argv[2], "w")
for i in range(len(line_list)):
out_file.write(line_list[i].get_string(True))
It's not important what exactly the parsing does, but the important part is if you call it, the first argument will be the input file for the parsing, the second argument is the output file for parsing.
So, what I'm doing essentially, is I'm using a batch file to validate the results of my parser by a typical input, output, baseline system...
ECHO Set the test, source, input, output and baseline directories
set TESTDIR=%CD%
set SRCDIR=%CD%\..\pypro\src
set INDIR=%CD%\input
set OUTDIR=%CD%\output
set BASEDIR=%CD%\baseline
:: Parser.py main method is base for unit testing on parsing
ECHO Begin Parser testing
cd %INDIR%\Parser
FOR %%G IN (*.psma) DO %SRCDIR%\Parser.py %%G %OUTDIR%\Parser\%%G
ECHO Parser testing complete
cd %TESTDIR%
"C:\Program Files\WinMerge\winmergeU.exe" "%OUTDIR%" "%BASEDIR%"
As you can see it diffs the results against the baseline, so if anything is changed the programmer knows it is no longer valid, or the requirements are wrong.
Is there anything wrong with this method? I did it because it would be easy. My plan is to continue doing this with as many modules that I can which are valid and make sense to do this way, as well as a suite of pyunit tests inside pydev...
I think it's a good idea, and it does seem to be a common use case for if __name__ == '__main__' construct. Though this is a more usual structure:
def main(argv=None):
if argv is None:
argv = sys.argv
# etc.
if __name__ == "__main__":
sys.exit(main() or 0)
This gives you the additional flexibility to use your main from within the interactive interpreter. There are a few more nice examples from Guido and others here.
Personally, what I do in these situations is creating test cases (although these would could more as integration test cases and not only unit test cases).
So, usually (in my workflow), those would be regular test cases (which diff the actual output with the expected output). Although probably in a separate source folder which is not run as often as the unit-test cases.
The bad part of having it as the __main__ is that you'll have to remember to run it as the entry point and you'll probably forget to do it later on as the project grows and you have many of those files -- or at least have a test case that calls that main() :)