Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Unittests and serial workflows
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:18:34 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87twpcvnph.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>
References: <n0mtgj$dag$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="1a9f5856d25720e42c135b990c70bebb"; logging-data="3426"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lbNtjEWslQT6pU+joRF3A"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XySVxCpksgRUgS7fzq2bys2i6Jo= sha1:Bp8UFWV/mQ8WJiKkz0zZx+mVd2Y=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:97965

Fabien <fabien.maussion@gmail.com> writes:
> Say I have several tasks (functions) A(), B(), C(), etc., each of them
> depending on the previous one. My understanding of unit testing is
> that each function should be tested alone and each test should be
> independent, so that currently my tests look like this:

Part of the trick is to organize the code so the functions are
independent.

>     def test_b(self):
>         tmp = A()
>         out = B(tmp)
>         self.assertStuffs(out)

It's better to avoid that.  Write B so that it doesn't require input to
actually come from A, but rather, write or generate some other sample
input.  Then test B separately from A.  Then afterwards you can have
function C that calls both, and put a test case through that.