I am attempting to get into the practice of TDD so I have been trying to start with Python's unittest module. I have written a test which I fully expect to fail, but it always passes! Below is the test code:
def test_file_not_found_exception(self):
invalid_config = "Testing/invalidExperiment.xml"
experiment_with_invalid_config = MyClass(invalid_config)
self.assertRaises(OSError, experiment_with_invalid_config.run_experiment())
and my class definition is as follows:
class MyClass:
def __init__(self, experiments, output_directory = ".")
self._experiments = experiments
self._output_directory = output_directory
def run_experiment(self):
try:
x = 2 # dummy statement
except OSError:
print "Experiment file not found"
except:
print "Unexpected Error"
I figure that the try block should always execute correctly so I am at a loss as to why my unittest keep passing. I am very new to OOP in Python so I may be making a very obvious mistake... Also, if I catch the exception in the try-except block of the run_experiment() method, should the assertRaises() call ever work?
You are calling the function MyClass.run_experiment and passing it's output to self.assertRaises, for which reason it does not properly register an error when it fails to raise.
Incorrect Example:
import unittest
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, config):
pass
def run_experiment(self): pass
class MainTest(unittest.TestCase):
def test_file_not_found_exception(self):
invalid_config = "Testing/invalidExperiment.xml"
experiment_with_invalid_config = MyClass(invalid_config)
self.assertRaises(OSError, experiment_with_invalid_config.run_experiment())
if __name__ == "__main__":
unittest.main()
Correct:
with self.assertRaises(OSError):
experiment_with_invalid_config.run_experiment()
Or
self.assertRaises(OSError, experiment_with_invalid_config.run_experiment)
Related
I have a Python class that I'm trying mock a certain variable in my unit test.
Excerpt of my Python class:
class something:
def __init__(self):
self._commandline = 'dir'
def run_function(self):
pass
In my unit test I am trying to set the class variable _commandline to something like "dirx" so that when I call run_function() that uses subprocess.run it'll fail and throw a subprocess.CalledProcessError so that I can test my assert.
This is my first time doing TDD please advice if there is a better way of doing this.
Thanks in advance!
Just re-assign the _commandLine variable.
E.g.
something.py:
class Something:
def __init__(self):
self._commandline = 'dir'
def run_function(self):
print(self._commandline)
pass
test_something.py:
import unittest
from something import Something
class TestSomething(unittest.TestCase):
def test_run_function(self):
instance = Something()
instance._commandline = 'dirx'
instance.run_function()
if __name__ == '__main__':
unittest.main()
test result:
dirx
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 0.000s
OK
I am working with a class in python that is part of a bigger program. The class is calling different methods.
If there is an error in one of the method I would like code to keep running after, but after the program is finished, I want to be able to see which methods had potential errors in them.
Below is roughly how I am structuring it at the moment, and this solution doesn't scale very well with more methods. Is there a better way to provide feedback (after the code has been fully run) as to which of the method had a potential error?
class Class():
def __init__(self):
try:
self.method_1()
except:
self.error_method1 = "Yes"
break
try:
self.method_2()
except:
self.error_method2 = "Yes"
break
try:
self.method_3()
except:
self.error_method3 = "Yes"
break
Although you could use sys.exc_info() to retrieve information about an Exception when one occurs as I mentioned in a comment, doing so may not be required since Python's standard try/expect mechanism seems adequate.
Below is a runnable example showing how to do so in order to provide "feedback" later about the execution of several methods of a class. This approach uses a decorator function, so should scale well since the same decorator can be applied to as many of the class' methods as desired.
from contextlib import contextmanager
from functools import wraps
import sys
from textwrap import indent
def provide_feedback(method):
""" Decorator to trap exceptions and add messages to feedback. """
#wraps(method)
def wrapped_method(self, *args, **kwargs):
try:
return method(self, *args, **kwargs)
except Exception as exc:
self._feedback.append(
'{!r} exception occurred in {}()'.format(exc, method.__qualname__))
return wrapped_method
class Class():
def __init__(self):
with self.feedback():
self.method_1()
self.method_2()
self.method_3()
#contextmanager
def feedback(self):
self._feedback = []
try:
yield
finally:
# Example of what could be done with any exception messages.
# They could instead be appended to some higher-level container.
if self._feedback:
print('Feedback:')
print(indent('\n'.join(self._feedback), ' '))
#provide_feedback
def method_1(self):
raise RuntimeError('bogus')
#provide_feedback
def method_2(self):
pass
#provide_feedback
def method_3(self):
raise StopIteration('Not enough foobar to go around')
inst = Class()
Output:
Feedback:
RuntimeError('bogus') exception occurred in Class.method_1()
StopIteration('Not enough foobar to go around') exception occurred in Class.method_3()
Suppose I have the following TestCase
class TestSomething(unittest.TestCase):
def test_a(self):
# Do some testing
def test_b(self):
# Do some other testing
Is it possible for me to run TestSomething.test_a if I have a reference to that test? What I am looking to do is something like:
def run_test(test):
# Somehow runs the test
# HERE IS THE PART I AM REALLY STUCK ON
run_test(TestSomething.test_a)
I know that it's an awkward thing to do for normal unit testing. What I am trying to do is provide a test to be run as an argument to a function decorator. Essentially:
#corresponding_test(TestSomething.test_a)
def my_function_a():
# Something here
And then in the decorator basically check if the test for that function passes before running the function.
OP clearly stated that the real world use case is more involved, but this still needs saying:
Disclaimer: This is not a good, standard way to run unit tests. If you use this code to run unit tests, you're [probably] doing it wrong.
That said, your question intrigued me, so I went ahead and wrote a working demo for you:
"""
The `only_if_test_passes` decorator can be used to run a function if and
only if the argument test (unbound `TestCase` method) passes.
"""
import inspect
from unittest import TestCase, TestResult
class TestError(Exception):
pass
class MyTests(TestCase):
def test_pass(self):
# This passes because nothing went wrong
pass
def test_fail(self):
self.fail('This test will always fail')
def only_if_test_passes(test_method):
# Comments are computed values when passed MyTests.test_pass
test_case_class = inspect._findclass(test_method) # MyTests
test_case_name = test_case_class.__name__ # 'MyTests'
test_name = test_method.__name__ # 'test_pass'
# Introspection for Python 2:
# test_case_class = test_method.im_class
# test_case_name = test_case_class.__name__ # Same as for Python 3
# test_name = test_method.if_func.func_name
def decorator(fn):
def decorated(*args, **kwargs):
test_result = TestResult()
case = test_case_class(test_name) # MyTests('test_pass')
case(test_result)
if test_result.wasSuccessful():
return fn(*args, **kwargs)
else:
raise TestError('Unit test failed: {}.{}'.format(
test_case_name, test_name))
return decorated
return decorator
#only_if_test_passes(MyTests.test_pass)
def this_will_run():
print('This should output')
#only_if_test_passes(MyTests.test_fail)
def this_wont_ever_run():
print("Don't bother; you'll never see this.")
if __name__ == "__main__":
this_will_run()
this_wont_ever_run()
gist
The introspection will be a little different in Python 2.
See also: unittest.TestCase docs
I'm testing a class, with many test methods. However, each method has a unique context. I then write my code as following:
class TestSomeClass(unittest.TestCase):
def test_a():
with a_context() as c:
pass
def test_b():
with b_context() as c:
pass
def test_c():
with c_context() as c:
pass
However, the context managers are irrelevant to the test case, and produce temporary files. So as to not pollute the file system when the test fails, I would like to use each context manager in a setup/teardown scenario.
I've looked at nose's with_setup, but the docs say that is meant for functions only, not methods. Another way is to move the test methods to separate classes each with a setup/teardown function. What's a good way to do this?
First of all, I'm not sure why what you have isn't working. I wrote some test code, and it shows that the exit code always gets called, under the unittest.main() execution environment. (Note, I did not test nose, so maybe that's why I couldn't replicate your failure.) Maybe your context manager is broken?
Here's my test:
import unittest
import contextlib
import sys
#contextlib.contextmanager
def context_mgr():
print "setting up context"
try:
yield
finally:
print "tearing down context"
class TestSomeClass(unittest.TestCase):
def test_normal(self):
with context_mgr() as c:
print "normal task"
def test_raise(self):
with context_mgr() as c:
print "raise task"
raise RuntimeError
def test_exit(self):
with context_mgr() as c:
print "exit task"
sys.exit(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
unittest.main()
By running that with $ python test_test.py I see tearing down context for all 3 tests.
Anyway, to answer your question, if you want a separate setup and teardown for each test, then you need to put each test in its own class. You can set up a parent class to do most of the work for you, so there isn't too much extra boilerplate:
class TestClassParent(unittest.TestCase):
context_guard = context_mgr()
def setUp(self):
#do common setup tasks here
self.c = self.context_guard.__enter__()
def tearDown(self):
#do common teardown tasks here
self.context_guard.__exit__(None,None,None)
class TestA(TestClassParent):
context_guard = context_mgr('A')
def test_normal(self):
print "task A"
class TestB(TestClassParent):
context_guard = context_mgr('B')
def test_normal(self):
print "task B"
This produces the output:
$ python test_test.py
setting up context: A
task A
tearing down context: A
.setting up context: B
task B
tearing down context: B
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 2 tests in 0.000s
OK
I have a test module in the standard unittest format
class my_test(unittest.TestCase):
def test_1(self):
[tests]
def test_2(self):
[tests]
etc....
My company has a proprietary test harness that will execute my module as a command line script, and which will catch any errors raised by my module, but requires that my module be mute if successful.
So, I am trying to find a way to run my test module naked, so that if all my tests pass then nothing is printed to the screen, and if a test fails with an AssertionError, that error gets piped through the standard Python error stack (just like any other error would in a normal Python script.)
The docs advocate using the unittest.main() function to run all the tests in a given module like
if __name__ == "__main__":
unittest.main()
The problem is that this wraps the test results in unittest's harness, so that even if all tests are successful, it still prints some fluff to the screen, and if there is an error, it's not simply dumped as a usual python error, but also dressed in the harness.
I've tried redirecting the output to an alternate stream using
with open('.LOG','a') as logf:
suite = unittest.TestLoader().loadTestsFromTestCase(my_test)
unittest.TextTestRunner(stream = logf).run(suite)
The problem here is that EVERYTHING gets piped to the log file (including all notice of errors). So when my companies harness runs the module, it complete's successfully because, as far as it can tell, no errors were raised (because they were all piped to the log file).
Any suggestions on how I can construct a test runner that suppresses all the fluff, and pipes errors through the normal Python error stack? As always, if you think there is a better way to approach this problem, please let me know.
EDIT:
Here is what I ended up using to resolve this. First, I added a "get_test_names()" method to my test class:
class my_test(unittest.TestCase):
etc....
#staticmethod
def get_test_names():
"""Return the names of all the test methods for this class."""
test_names = [ member[0] for memeber in inspect.getmembers(my_test)
if 'test_' in member[0] ]
Then I replaced my call to unittest.main() with the following:
# Unittest catches all errors raised by the test cases, and returns them as
# formatted strings inside a TestResult object. In order for the test
# harness to catch these errors they need to be re-raised, and so I am defining
# this CompareError class to do that.
# For each code error, a CompareError will be raised, with the original error
# stack as the argument. For test failures (i.e. assertion errors) an
# AssertionError is raised.
class CompareError(Exception):
def __init__(self,err):
self.err = err
def __str__(self):
return repr(self.err)
# Collect all tests into a TestSuite()
all_tests = ut.TestSuite()
for test in my_test.get_test_names():
all_tests.addTest(my_test(test))
# Define a TestResult object and run tests
results = ut.TestResult()
all_tests.run(results)
# Re-raise any script errors
for error in results.errors:
raise CompareError(error[1])
# Re-raise any test failures
for failure in results.failures:
raise AssertionError(failure[1])
I came up with this. If you are able to change the command line you might remove the internal io redirection.
import sys, inspect, traceback
# redirect stdout,
# can be replaced by testharness.py > /dev/null at console
class devnull():
def write(self, data):
pass
f = devnull()
orig_stdout = sys.stdout
sys.stdout = f
class TestCase():
def test_1(self):
print 'test_1'
def test_2(self):
raise AssertionError, 'test_2'
def test_3(self):
print 'test_3'
if __name__ == "__main__":
testcase = TestCase()
testnames = [ t[0] for t in inspect.getmembers(TestCase)
if t[0].startswith('test_') ]
for testname in testnames:
try:
getattr(testcase, testname)()
except AssertionError, e:
print >> sys.stderr, traceback.format_exc()
# restore
sys.stdout = orig_stdout