dulwich-users team mailing list archive

[Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dave,

"The perfect is the enemy of the good". This is certainly an improvement
over the current situation so I've merged it. We can always improve it
later. API compatibility shouldn't really be an issue in the test suite.

Cheers,

Jelmer

On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 09:02 -0800, Dave Borowitz wrote:
> Ok, I just wanted *something* simpler than what we had, since these
> patches introduced a fair number of new extension functions.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 04:10, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>         
>         On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 16:22 -0800, dborowitz@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>         > diff --git a/dulwich/tests/utils.py b/dulwich/tests/utils.py
>         > index 8df2a83..2535e3f 100644
>         > --- a/dulwich/tests/utils.py
>         > +++ b/dulwich/tests/utils.py
>         > @@ -25,12 +25,16 @@ import os
>         >  import shutil
>         >  import tempfile
>         >  import time
>         > +import types
>         >
>         >  from dulwich.objects import (
>         >      FixedSha,
>         >      Commit,
>         >      )
>         >  from dulwich.repo import Repo
>         > +from dulwich.tests import (
>         > +    TestSkipped,
>         > +    )
>         >
>         >
>         >  def open_repo(name):
>         > @@ -105,3 +109,41 @@ def make_commit(**attrs):
>         >                   'tree': '0' * 40}
>         >      all_attrs.update(attrs)
>         >      return make_object(Commit, **all_attrs)
>         > +
>         > +
>         > +def functest_builder(method, func):
>         > +    """Generate a test method that tests the given
>         function."""
>         > +
>         > +    def do_test(self):
>         > +        method(self, func)
>         > +
>         > +    return do_test
>         > +
>         > +
>         > +def ext_functest_builder(method, func):
>         > +    """Generate a test method that tests the given
>         extension function.
>         > +
>         > +    This is intended to generate test methods that test
>         both a pure-Python
>         > +    version and an extension version using common test
>         code. The extension test
>         > +    will raise TestSkipped if the extension is not found.
>         > +
>         > +    Sample usage:
>         > +
>         > +    class MyTest(TestCase);
>         > +        def _do_some_test(self, func_impl):
>         > +            self.assertEqual('foo', func_impl())
>         > +
>         > +        test_foo = functest_builder(_do_some_test, foo_py)
>         > +        test_foo_extension =
>         ext_functest_builder(_do_some_test, _foo_c)
>         > +
>         > +    :param method: The method to run. It must must two
>         parameters, self and the
>         > +        function implementation to test.
>         > +    :param func: The function implementation to pass to
>         method.
>         > +    """
>         > +
>         > +    def do_test(self):
>         > +        if not isinstance(func, types.BuiltinFunctionType):
>         > +            raise TestSkipped("%s extension not found",
>         func.func_name)
>         > +        method(self, func)
>         > +
>         > +    return do_test
>         
>         I'm not crazy about this pattern, the approach that's used in
>         Bazaar for
>         this kind of thing is nicer imho. I'll see if I can propose an
>         alternative.
>         
>         Cheers,
>         
>         Jelmer
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part