Mixing
Correct way to test a function
Is it okay to call build_admins_message in the tests to build expected result that will be used in mock assertion?
Implementation:
@slack_messages.on_pattern('(?i)^admins$')
def handle_admins_message(event, body, match):
team_id = event['team_id']
user_id = body['user']
message = build_admins_message(team_id, user_id)
Slack(team_id).send_message(user_id, **message)
Tests:
class TestAdminsMessageHandler(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
team = SlackTeam.objects.create(team_id='TEAMID')
SlackUser.objects.create(team=team, user_id='USERID')
def tearDown(self):
SlackUser.objects.all().delete()
SlackTeam.objects.all().delete()
@mock.patch('slango.slack.Slack.send_message')
def test_correct_text(self, send_message_mock):
event = {
'team_id': 'TEAMID',
'event': {
'text': 'admins',
'user': 'USERID'
}
}
handle_admins_message(event, event['event'])
expected_message = build_admins_message('TEAMID', 'USERID')
send_message_mock.assert_called_with('USERID', **expected_message)
Implementation of the build_admins_message:
def build_admins_message(team_id, user_id):
user = SlackUser.retrieve(team_id, user_id)
admins = SlackUser.objects.filter(
is_bot_admin=True, team__team_id=team_id).order_by(
'real_name', 'display_name')
attachments =
if user.is_bot_admin:
attachments.append(build_admin_picker())
for admin in admins:
attachments.append(build_admin_item(user, admin))
attachments.append(build_admin_more())
return {
'text': "Here is users with admin rights:",
'attachments': attachments
}
python unit-testing testing mocking integration-testing
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
add a comment |
Is it okay to call build_admins_message in the tests to build expected result that will be used in mock assertion?
Implementation:
@slack_messages.on_pattern('(?i)^admins$')
def handle_admins_message(event, body, match):
team_id = event['team_id']
user_id = body['user']
message = build_admins_message(team_id, user_id)
Slack(team_id).send_message(user_id, **message)
Tests:
class TestAdminsMessageHandler(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
team = SlackTeam.objects.create(team_id='TEAMID')
SlackUser.objects.create(team=team, user_id='USERID')
def tearDown(self):
SlackUser.objects.all().delete()
SlackTeam.objects.all().delete()
@mock.patch('slango.slack.Slack.send_message')
def test_correct_text(self, send_message_mock):
event = {
'team_id': 'TEAMID',
'event': {
'text': 'admins',
'user': 'USERID'
}
}
handle_admins_message(event, event['event'])
expected_message = build_admins_message('TEAMID', 'USERID')
send_message_mock.assert_called_with('USERID', **expected_message)
Implementation of the build_admins_message:
def build_admins_message(team_id, user_id):
user = SlackUser.retrieve(team_id, user_id)
admins = SlackUser.objects.filter(
is_bot_admin=True, team__team_id=team_id).order_by(
'real_name', 'display_name')
attachments =
if user.is_bot_admin:
attachments.append(build_admin_picker())
for admin in admins:
attachments.append(build_admin_item(user, admin))
attachments.append(build_admin_more())
return {
'text': "Here is users with admin rights:",
'attachments': attachments
}
python unit-testing testing mocking integration-testing
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
add a comment |
Is it okay to call build_admins_message in the tests to build expected result that will be used in mock assertion?
Implementation:
@slack_messages.on_pattern('(?i)^admins$')
def handle_admins_message(event, body, match):
team_id = event['team_id']
user_id = body['user']
message = build_admins_message(team_id, user_id)
Slack(team_id).send_message(user_id, **message)
Tests:
class TestAdminsMessageHandler(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
team = SlackTeam.objects.create(team_id='TEAMID')
SlackUser.objects.create(team=team, user_id='USERID')
def tearDown(self):
SlackUser.objects.all().delete()
SlackTeam.objects.all().delete()
@mock.patch('slango.slack.Slack.send_message')
def test_correct_text(self, send_message_mock):
event = {
'team_id': 'TEAMID',
'event': {
'text': 'admins',
'user': 'USERID'
}
}
handle_admins_message(event, event['event'])
expected_message = build_admins_message('TEAMID', 'USERID')
send_message_mock.assert_called_with('USERID', **expected_message)
Implementation of the build_admins_message:
def build_admins_message(team_id, user_id):
user = SlackUser.retrieve(team_id, user_id)
admins = SlackUser.objects.filter(
is_bot_admin=True, team__team_id=team_id).order_by(
'real_name', 'display_name')
attachments =
if user.is_bot_admin:
attachments.append(build_admin_picker())
for admin in admins:
attachments.append(build_admin_item(user, admin))
attachments.append(build_admin_more())
return {
'text': "Here is users with admin rights:",
'attachments': attachments
}
python unit-testing testing mocking integration-testing
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
Is it okay to call build_admins_message in the tests to build expected result that will be used in mock assertion?
Implementation:
@slack_messages.on_pattern('(?i)^admins$')
def handle_admins_message(event, body, match):
team_id = event['team_id']
user_id = body['user']
message = build_admins_message(team_id, user_id)
Slack(team_id).send_message(user_id, **message)
Tests:
class TestAdminsMessageHandler(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
team = SlackTeam.objects.create(team_id='TEAMID')
SlackUser.objects.create(team=team, user_id='USERID')
def tearDown(self):
SlackUser.objects.all().delete()
SlackTeam.objects.all().delete()
@mock.patch('slango.slack.Slack.send_message')
def test_correct_text(self, send_message_mock):
event = {
'team_id': 'TEAMID',
'event': {
'text': 'admins',
'user': 'USERID'
}
}
handle_admins_message(event, event['event'])
expected_message = build_admins_message('TEAMID', 'USERID')
send_message_mock.assert_called_with('USERID', **expected_message)
Implementation of the build_admins_message:
def build_admins_message(team_id, user_id):
user = SlackUser.retrieve(team_id, user_id)
admins = SlackUser.objects.filter(
is_bot_admin=True, team__team_id=team_id).order_by(
'real_name', 'display_name')
attachments =
if user.is_bot_admin:
attachments.append(build_admin_picker())
for admin in admins:
attachments.append(build_admin_item(user, admin))
attachments.append(build_admin_more())
return {
'text': "Here is users with admin rights:",
'attachments': attachments
}
python unit-testing testing mocking integration-testing
python unit-testing testing mocking integration-testing
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
edited Jan 2 at 14:08
oneor0
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
asked Jan 2 at 13:09
oneor0oneor0
609618
609618
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This would depend on the role of build_admins_message in your program.
Since different parts of the program all need to build the message in the same way, this is probably okay. Consider whether you can make it more explicit that build_admins_message is used like this, e.g. with dependency injection. Make sure your helper method has its own test. (I usually see using patch as a design smell, but remember that doesn't automatically mean something is wrong!)
If instead build_admins_message existed solely as a helper function for handle_admins_message, then using it in your test violates encapsulation and ties your test to the implementation too much. In that case, I would just manually write out the expected message in my test.
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
I usebuild_admins_messagefunction multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, butbuild_admins_messagereturns pretty big dictionary.
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I makebuild_admins_messagea more explicit dependency?
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching outbuild_admins_messageas well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.
– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54006976%2fcorrect-way-to-test-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This would depend on the role of build_admins_message in your program.
Since different parts of the program all need to build the message in the same way, this is probably okay. Consider whether you can make it more explicit that build_admins_message is used like this, e.g. with dependency injection. Make sure your helper method has its own test. (I usually see using patch as a design smell, but remember that doesn't automatically mean something is wrong!)
If instead build_admins_message existed solely as a helper function for handle_admins_message, then using it in your test violates encapsulation and ties your test to the implementation too much. In that case, I would just manually write out the expected message in my test.
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
I usebuild_admins_messagefunction multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, butbuild_admins_messagereturns pretty big dictionary.
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I makebuild_admins_messagea more explicit dependency?
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching outbuild_admins_messageas well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.
– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
add a comment |
This would depend on the role of build_admins_message in your program.
Since different parts of the program all need to build the message in the same way, this is probably okay. Consider whether you can make it more explicit that build_admins_message is used like this, e.g. with dependency injection. Make sure your helper method has its own test. (I usually see using patch as a design smell, but remember that doesn't automatically mean something is wrong!)
If instead build_admins_message existed solely as a helper function for handle_admins_message, then using it in your test violates encapsulation and ties your test to the implementation too much. In that case, I would just manually write out the expected message in my test.
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
I usebuild_admins_messagefunction multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, butbuild_admins_messagereturns pretty big dictionary.
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I makebuild_admins_messagea more explicit dependency?
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching outbuild_admins_messageas well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.
– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
add a comment |
This would depend on the role of build_admins_message in your program.
Since different parts of the program all need to build the message in the same way, this is probably okay. Consider whether you can make it more explicit that build_admins_message is used like this, e.g. with dependency injection. Make sure your helper method has its own test. (I usually see using patch as a design smell, but remember that doesn't automatically mean something is wrong!)
If instead build_admins_message existed solely as a helper function for handle_admins_message, then using it in your test violates encapsulation and ties your test to the implementation too much. In that case, I would just manually write out the expected message in my test.
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
This would depend on the role of build_admins_message in your program.
Since different parts of the program all need to build the message in the same way, this is probably okay. Consider whether you can make it more explicit that build_admins_message is used like this, e.g. with dependency injection. Make sure your helper method has its own test. (I usually see using patch as a design smell, but remember that doesn't automatically mean something is wrong!)
If instead build_admins_message existed solely as a helper function for handle_admins_message, then using it in your test violates encapsulation and ties your test to the implementation too much. In that case, I would just manually write out the expected message in my test.
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
edited Jan 2 at 14:01
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
answered Jan 2 at 13:33
JETMJETM
2,10241729
2,10241729
I usebuild_admins_messagefunction multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, butbuild_admins_messagereturns pretty big dictionary.
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I makebuild_admins_messagea more explicit dependency?
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching outbuild_admins_messageas well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.
– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
add a comment |
I usebuild_admins_messagefunction multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, butbuild_admins_messagereturns pretty big dictionary.
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I makebuild_admins_messagea more explicit dependency?
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching outbuild_admins_messageas well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.
– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
I use
build_admins_message function multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, but build_admins_message returns pretty big dictionary.– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
I use
build_admins_message function multiple times throughout my program and I would prefer to manually write out expected message too, but build_admins_message returns pretty big dictionary.– oneor0
Jan 2 at 13:56
How can I make
build_admins_message a more explicit dependency?– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
How can I make
build_admins_message a more explicit dependency?– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:01
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
I've added implementation to the question
– oneor0
Jan 2 at 14:09
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching out
build_admins_message as well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
@DmitryChernyshov Looking at it more, I probably wouldn't bother. Maybe patching out
build_admins_message as well and asserting that that's called. Maybe if I knew your program and the Slack library better I would have a better idea.– JETM
Jan 2 at 14:31
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54006976%2fcorrect-way-to-test-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
