<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Apr 15, 2013 1:11 PM, "Chris Conway" <<a href="mailto:clconway@google.com">clconway@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I've recently started using the mock library in my code (transitioning from Mox) and I really like it a lot. There's a few little utilities I've written for myself and I wonder if you'd accept them as patches.<br>
><br>
> First, I find that I strongly prefer to use autospecced instances for most of my mocks. To make that simpler, I wrote a create_strictspec() function as a wrapper around create_autospec() with instance=True.<br>
><br>
> I also find that I frequently want a mock function that should never be called (e.g., in a test where I'm patching open() and testing a code path where no file is opened). This can be asserted ex post by checking call_count, but then you don't get any information about where the call occurred. Alternatively, you can use a NoncallableMock, but then you get a fairly opaque error: "TypeError: 'NonCallableMock' object is not callable". I find it preferable to use a utility method expect_never_called() to set an AssertionError side effect on the mock.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I find this error message to be pretty transparent honestly.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Hypothetically though, Mock's assertions are all state based and done after exercising, so starting to add preconfigured expectations would seem out of place to me. I personally wouldn't mind terribly much if you wanted to change the error message to say something more mock-specific, but nothing comes to me at the moment that would beat the current message.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't have a meaningful opinion on the first thing since unfortunately I don't use tightly spec'ed mocks as much as I should, mostly out of laziness :/. But it'd have to be fairly common to deserve a separate function for a single parameter.</p>
<p dir="ltr">(Would love to hear more things you come up with coming from Mox certainly, there was someone else in the IRC channel who was discussing it [maybe that was you?])</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers,<br>
Julian</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Do you think these would be helpful additions to the library?<br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> testing-in-python mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org">testing-in-python@lists.idyll.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python">http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python</a><br>
><br>
</p>