Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <531de147$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
References: <531de147$0$29994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
From: Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:05:02 +0000
Subject: Re: Testing interactive code using raw_input
To: "Steven D'Aprano" <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Python List <python-list@python.org>
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.8005.1394467535.18130.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:68153

On 10 March 2014 15:59, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Does anyone have any good hints for testing interactive code that uses
> raw_input, or input in Python 3?
>
> A simple technique would be to factor out the interactive part, e.g. like
> this:
>
> # Before
> def spam():
>     answer = raw_input(prompt)
>     return eggs(answer) + cheese(answer) + toast(answer)
>
> # After
> def spam():
>     answer = raw_input(prompt)
>     return func(answer)
>
> def func(s):
>     return eggs(s) + cheese(s) + toast(s)
>
>
>
> and then test func. But how about times where it is inconvenient to
> factor out the raw_input stuff out of the function? E.g. suppose you have
> a function that takes some arguments, gathers some more values
> interactively, processes the lot, and then returns a result. With an
> automated test, I can provide the arguments, and check the result, but
> what are my options for *automatically* supplying input to raw_input?

Use a subprocess?


Oscar