We just need a volunteer (or few) to drive it :D
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:
> Yeah. I like it and the discussion :) - it's so cool to see so many
> people taking part and leading the discussion. The Airflow community is
> awesome.
>
> I think it's nice with pytest-mock + the "pytest-first" patterns. I think
> it would be cool to indeed propose a "guideline" first and then possibly
> even rewrite things and add some guardrails to flag non-pytest usages
> automatically (pre-commit) - that is always the best to not only "agree" on
> something but automate keeping that in-check.
>
> We could likely - again - use AI and run a small mini-project to convert
> all our tests. I think if we write detailed-enough guideline, we can
> literally prompt AI "rewrite the test code here following the guidelines
> here".
>
> So what I see as an "outcome of a discussion" is:
> * to collaboratively work on the guidelines
> * make them both human and AI digestible
> * add guardrails to not add old style in new files and to gradually mark
> parts of the code as "done" when done
> * run the "mini-project" to apply it consistently (and maybe as a
> result iterate and correct and improve the guidelines)
>
> J.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 7:57 AM Amogh Desai <amoghdesai....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to TP's proposal too.
>>
>> It's easy to read and also stands out better.
>>
>> We have a few places in the task-sdk tests where we also have done
>> patterns
>> like:
>>
>> assert not any(
>> x
>> == mock.call(
>> msg=GetXCom(
>> key="key",
>> dag_id="test_dag",
>> run_id="test_run",
>> task_id="pull_task",
>> map_index=-1,
>> ),
>> )
>> for x in mock_supervisor_comms.send.call_args_list
>> )
>>
>>
>> call_args_list is particularly useful in scenarios when you want to
>> validate presence / absence of a call.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>> Amogh Desai
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 8:39 PM Kyungjun Lee <kyungjunlee...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thank you all — I really appreciate how many people have joined the
>> > discussion.
>> >
>> > I also like the approach that Tzu-ping Chung suggested. This really
>> isn’t
>> > an easy topic. At first, I thought it would be best to use only plain
>> > assert
>> > statements, but after reading through the different perspectives here,
>> I’ve
>> > come to realize that overusing assert can also be problematic. It’s
>> been a
>> > great reminder that we should be intentional about what we choose to
>> assert
>> > — making sure we’re testing what truly matters.
>> >
>> >
>> > I’ll also follow up soon with an example snippet and a brief testing
>> guide
>> > to help clarify the discussion.
>> >
>> > 2025년 7월 10일 (목) 오후 11:49, Tzu-ping Chung <t...@astronomer.io.invalid>님이
>> 작성:
>> >
>> > > Does pytest-mock have an equivalent for call()? I agree for mocking in
>> > > general we should consider replacing plain decorators and context
>> > managers
>> > > with the mocker fixture. This probably deserves its own discussion
>> > thread.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > >
>> > > > On 10 Jul 2025, at 14:37, Dev-iL <gid....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > One tiny comment regarding TP's suggestion - IMHO it's better to
>> avoid
>> > > `unittest.mock` in favor of the equivalent `mocker` fixture provided
>> by
>> > > `pytest-mock`.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 2025/07/10 06:30:22 Tzu-ping Chung wrote:
>> > > > > Personally I dislike things like assert_called_once_with etc.
>> since
>> > > they are easy to miss when you scan a test to see what they are
>> trying to
>> > > check. An 'assert' keyword stands out (it’s always the first word in
>> the
>> > > line), especially with syntax highlighting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I do agree the proposed Pytest style is arguably less readable. I
>> > > offer another syntax.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > from unittest.mock import call
>> > > > >
>> > > > > assert mock_http_run.mock_calls == [
>> > > > > call(
>> > > > > endpoint=f"api/v2/accounts/{expected_account_id}/",
>> > > > > data=None,
>> > > > > extra_options=None,
>> > > > > )
>> > > > > ]
>> > > > > assert mock_paginate.mock_calls == []
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > To me, this is on par with assert_called_once_with et al. in
>> terms of
>> > > readability, and arguably better for test authors since you don’t
>> need to
>> > > remember the various function names anymore, but only 'mock_calls' and
>> > the
>> > > 'call' helper class.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > TP
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On Jul 9, 2025, at 23:28, Ferruzzi, Dennis
>> > <fe...@amazon.com.INVALID>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm a bit late to the party, and really only reiterating what
>> has
>> > > already been said, but of the two examples (original and your
>> rewrite, I
>> > > prefer the original. I think as a general rule, we tend to use the
>> > > assert_called_once, etc with mocks butt he asserts with non-mocked
>> > > variables.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I am all for more documentation, but I'd have a slight
>> preference
>> > > towards keeping the existing structure.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - ferruzzi
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > From: Kyungjun Lee <ky...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:13 AM
>> > > > > > To: dev@airflow.apache.org
>> > > > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] Consistent test assertion style:
>> > > pytest-native vs unittest-style
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the
>> organization. Do
>> > > not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender
>> and
>> > > know the content is safe.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur
>> > > externe. Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si
>> > vous
>> > > ne pouvez pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes
>> pas
>> > > certain que le contenu ne présente aucun risque.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you Ash and Amogh Desai for your insights and
>> explanations.
>> > > > > > The information you shared has been incredibly helpful and is
>> > > contributing
>> > > > > > a lot to my growth.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > 2025년 7월 8일 (화) 오후 2:54, Amogh Desai <am...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Agreed, I personally also find the current way to be easier to
>> > read
>> > > and in
>> > > > > >> most
>> > > > > >> cases we want to assert if "something" was called,
>> irrespective of
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> order it was
>> > > > > >> called in. So the dedicated function based way works well for
>> me.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> If I want to test a order, I'd rather call parts of code that I
>> > > want to
>> > > > > >> test explicitly and assert
>> > > > > >> on them.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> This happens because the mock object is not properly
>> recognized
>> > as
>> > > a mock
>> > > > > >> instance at type-checking time, which might confuse some
>> > > contributors,
>> > > > > >> especially new ones relying on type hints or static analysis
>> > tools.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Regarding this, I'd say you can either cast mocks to their
>> types
>> > as
>> > > one
>> > > > > >> way:
>> > > > > >> `mock_http_run: MagicMock = mock_http_run` -- give or take, or
>> use
>> > > > > >> `autospec` to make the mock reflect the signature of the
>> object?
>> > > Check out:
>> > > > > >>
>> https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#autospeccing
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> Thanks & Regards,
>> > > > > >> Amogh Desai
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 6:13 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <
>> > as...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> def test_get_account(self, mock_paginate: Mock, mock_http_run:
>> > > Mocj,
>> > > > > >>> conn_id, account_id):
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Might fix that? IDEs in general do not cope well with purest
>> > > tests, and
>> > > > > >>> are missing context on what most of the variables are, be it
>> > > > > >> parameterised
>> > > > > >>> values or fixture values, so this isn’t a problem that is
>> unique
>> > to
>> > > > > >> mocks.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 7 Jul 2025, at 12:47, Kyungjun Lee <ky...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> I'd like to follow up on our previous discussion about
>> > > pytest-native vs
>> > > > > >>>> unittest-style assertions.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> While working on the following test case:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> ```python
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> @pytest.mark.parametrize(
>> > > > > >>>> argnames="conn_id, account_id",
>> > > > > >>>> argvalues=[(ACCOUNT_ID_CONN, None), (NO_ACCOUNT_ID_CONN,
>> > > > > >> ACCOUNT_ID)],
>> > > > > >>>> ids=["default_account", "explicit_account"],
>> > > > > >>>> )
>> > > > > >>>> @patch.object(DbtCloudHook, "run")
>> > > > > >>>> @patch.object(DbtCloudHook, "_paginate")
>> > > > > >>>> def test_get_account(self, mock_paginate, mock_http_run,
>> > conn_id,
>> > > > > >>>> account_id):
>> > > > > >>>> hook = DbtCloudHook(conn_id)
>> > > > > >>>> hook.get_account(account_id=account_id)
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> assert hook.method == "GET"
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> _account_id = account_id or DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_ID
>> > > > > >>>> hook.run.assert_called_once_with(
>> > > > > >>>> endpoint=f"api/v2/accounts/{_account_id}/", data=None,
>> > > > > >>>> extra_options=None
>> > > > > >>>> )
>> > > > > >>>> hook._paginate.assert_not_called()
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> ```
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> My IDE shows a warning:
>> > > > > >>>> Cannot find reference 'assert_called_once_with' in
>> 'function'.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> This happens because the mock object is not properly
>> recognized
>> > > as a
>> > > > > >> mock
>> > > > > >>>> instance at type-checking time, which might confuse some
>> > > contributors,
>> > > > > >>>> especially new ones relying on type hints or static analysis
>> > > tools.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> I realized that this aspect of mock handling might be missing
>> > > from our
>> > > > > >>>> previous discussions. I wanted to bring it up as part of the
>> > > broader
>> > > > > >>>> conversation about test styles—particularly how we balance
>> > > IDE/tooling
>> > > > > >>>> support with readability and style consistency.
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> Curious to hear your thoughts on this!
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> @ash @potiuk
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> 2025년 7월 6일 (일) 오후 8:09, Kyungjun Lee <ky...@gmail.com>님이
>> 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Thank you @Potiuk for pointing out the intent behind the
>> “one
>> > > assert
>> > > > > >> per
>> > > > > >>>>> test” principle, and @ash for highlighting how using
>> dedicated
>> > > mock
>> > > > > >>> assert
>> > > > > >>>>> functions can make the code easier to read and understand.
>> > These
>> > > were
>> > > > > >>>>> perspectives I hadn’t fully considered, and I really
>> appreciate
>> > > you
>> > > > > >>> sharing
>> > > > > >>>>> them.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Thanks to your input, I was able to read more materials and
>> > > broaden my
>> > > > > >>>>> thinking on the topic. That said, my original focus was
>> more on
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> idea
>> > > > > >>>>> that sticking to plain assert statements lowers the entry
>> > > barrier for
>> > > > > >>> new
>> > > > > >>>>> contributors—because they don’t have to learn multiple
>> > assertion
>> > > > > >> styles.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Still, as @Potiuk mentioned, I’ll put more thought into
>> making
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>> testing
>> > > > > >>>>> guidelines clearer and more concrete—especially since that
>> > helps
>> > > > > >>> AI-based
>> > > > > >>>>> tools as well 😄
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> For reference, here’s one of the articles I read:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/test-desiderata-94150638a4b3
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Thank you to everyone who took part in this discussion.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> 2025년 7월 6일 (일) 오후 3:42, Ash Berlin-Taylor <
>> as...@apache.org
>> > >님이
>> > > 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I personally find the dedicated functions way easier to
>> read
>> > the
>> > > > > >> intent
>> > > > > >>>>>> behind, it’s one function/statement vs 3. More so when you
>> > > don’t care
>> > > > > >>> about
>> > > > > >>>>>> the order of calls, just that something was called (where
>> to
>> > do
>> > > this
>> > > > > >>>>>> manually we’d need to reimplement the helper function)
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Additionally pytest already rewrites those to have nicer
>> error
>> > > > > >>> messages,
>> > > > > >>>>>> but the dedicated mock assert finding are much easier to
>> read
>> > > the
>> > > > > >> code
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>> understand the intent to me, so I’i am for staying with the
>> > > dedicated
>> > > > > >>>>>> assert functions
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> -ash
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On 5 Jul 2025, at 13:30, Kyungjun Lee <ky...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> I’ve learned a lot of things I didn’t know before.
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Thank you so much for all your help — I really appreciate
>> it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>> I’ll get started on this right away!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> 2025년 7월 5일 (토) 오후 9:18, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com
>> >님이
>> > 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Haha ... I'm curious — which part sounded like ChatGPT
>> > style?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> English isn't my first language, so I did get a little
>> help
>> > > from
>> > > > > >> it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> That whole paragraph :) .
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sure! Since you asked for how the test *should* be
>> > written,
>> > > I
>> > > > > >> took
>> > > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> opportunity to clean it up using a more pytest-native
>> style
>> > > while
>> > > > > >>> also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> fixing the mock order issue.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> "Sure! Since you asked ..." sounds like an AI bot.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> That got me thinking — what do you think about adding a
>> > > guideline
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> document
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> for writing tests, similar to how we have a coding style
>> > > guide?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Absolutely - we already have some "seed' of it "Writing
>> > tests"
>> > > > > >>>>>> chapter in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> contributing guideline, but we could definitely make it
>> more
>> > > > > >>> detailed.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/testing/unit_tests.rst#writing-unit-tests
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> And - speaking of AI - this is becoming more and more
>> > > important to
>> > > > > >>>>>> describe
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> any common rules we have and context - so that using
>> Agentic
>> > > AI
>> > > > > >>> yields
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> better results. Kaxil already added
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/AGENTS.md
>> which
>> > > > > >>> describes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> context for coding agents lile Codex - and we could
>> improve
>> > > it and
>> > > > > >>> link
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> more docs from our repo if they get more of our agreed
>> > > > > >> "conventions"
>> > > > > >>> -
>> > > > > >>>>>> then
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Agents would get it as context and their generated code
>> > would
>> > > be
>> > > > > >>>>>> consistent
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> with what we describe there.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> In a way - I think having a good documentation on
>> processes,
>> > > tools
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> conventions was always something I've been after, but
>> with
>> > the
>> > > > > >>> Agentic
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> workflows it might significantly boost the quality of
>> > > generated
>> > > > > >> code
>> > > > > >>>>>> if we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> have more of those conventions and guidelines described.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> So .... ABSOLUTELY ... the more we describe in there, the
>> > > better.
>> > > > > >> And
>> > > > > >>>>>> we
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> have no more excuse that "anyhow no-one reads it" -
>> because
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>> coding
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> agents WILL be reading it and acting accordingly. So I
>> think
>> > > this
>> > > > > >> is
>> > > > > >>> a
>> > > > > >>>>>> very
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> good investment to make.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> J.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 2:07 PM Kyungjun Lee <
>> > > > > >>> kyungjunlee...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Haha ... I'm curious — which part sounded like ChatGPT
>> > style?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> English isn't my first language, so I did get a little
>> help
>> > > from
>> > > > > >> it.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> But thank you — I actually learned something new from
>> your
>> > > > > >> comment!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> That got me thinking — what do you think about adding a
>> > > guideline
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> document
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> for writing tests, similar to how we have a coding style
>> > > guide? It
>> > > > > >>>>>> might
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> help ensure consistency across the Airflow codebase
>> when it
>> > > comes
>> > > > > >> to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> testing styles as well.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2025년 7월 5일 (토) 오후 8:52, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com
>> >님이
>> > > 작성:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> But of course - i'd love to hear what others think -
>> it's
>> > > not a
>> > > > > >>> "very
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> strong" opinion.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 1:48 PM Jarek Potiuk <
>> > > ja...@potiuk.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cool. That's what I wanted to see.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By the way - not that there's anything wrong - but was
>> > the
>> > > > > >> answer
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> written
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by AI initially ? The first paragraph looks
>> suspiciously
>> > > like
>> > > > > >> Chat
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> GPT
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> answer :D ?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Comment from my side: I personally prefer the original
>> > > style.
>> > > > > >> It's
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> more
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> concise and it is easier to read - you see as if the
>> call
>> > > was
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> actually
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> written down. Also this is quite a bit too many
>> > assertions
>> > > in
>> > > > > >> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> second
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> case and it takes a lot of mental effort to understand
>> > what
>> > > > > >>> actually
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> is
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> being asserted.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> There is a "school" of writing unit tests that every
>> test
>> > > should
>> > > > > >>>>>> have
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> ONE
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> assertion only. Always. I think it is a bit extreme,
>> and
>> > I
>> > > do
>> > > > > >> not
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> follow
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> myself but I think it is also a kind of good
>> direction to
>> > > have
>> > > > > >> ->
>> > > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> fewer
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> assertions you have in your test, the better (I
>> think).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think tests should be mostly optimized for easiness
>> of
>> > > reading
>> > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> understanding what is being tested - and it's just not
>> > > that easy
>> > > > > >>> in
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> second case.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> J.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 1:39 PM Kyungjun Lee <
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> kyungjunlee...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure! Since you asked for how the test *should* be
>> > > written, I
>> > > > > >>> took
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to clean it up using a more pytest-native
>> > > style
>> > > > > >> while
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> fixing the mock order issue.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s the updated test:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ```python
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @pytest.mark.parametrize(
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> argnames="conn_id, account_id",
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> argvalues=[(ACCOUNT_ID_CONN, None),
>> (NO_ACCOUNT_ID_CONN,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> ACCOUNT_ID)],
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ids=["default_account", "explicit_account"],
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> )
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @patch.object(DbtCloudHook, "run")
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> @patch.object(DbtCloudHook, "_paginate")
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> def test_get_account(self, mock_paginate,
>> mock_http_run,
>> > > > > >> conn_id,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> account_id):
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> hook = DbtCloudHook(conn_id)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> hook.get_account(account_id=account_id)
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> assert hook.method == "GET"
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> expected_account_id = account_id or
>> DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_ID
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> assert mock_http_run.call_count == 1
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> assert mock_http_run.call_args.args == ()
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> assert mock_http_run.call_args.kwargs == {
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "endpoint":
>> f"api/v2/accounts/{expected_account_id}/",
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "data": None,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "extra_options": None,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> }
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> assert mock_paginate.call_count == 0
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ```
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why I chose this style:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Mock verification using assert*: Instead of
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mock.assert_called_once_with(...), I used call_count
>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> call_args.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> approach aligns better with pytest’s idioms and
>> produces
>> > > > > >>> cleaner,
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> more
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> readable error messages when assertions fail.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Explicit verification*: Using call_args.args and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> call_args.kwargs
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the test behavior very explicit, which helps with
>> > > debugging
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding the exact calls made.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Decorator order matching argument order*: As @patch
>> > > > > >> decorators
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> apply
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> from the bottom up, the argument order has been
>> > corrected
>> > > to
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> match
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> (
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> mock_paginate first, then mock_http_run).
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you'd like to follow a slightly
>> different
>> > > > > >>> convention
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> —
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> happy
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to adjust!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I was lu
>> > > > [message truncated...]
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
