I see using mock.patch as equivalent to extending a class and changing the
behavior of a method, which i strongly prefer to avoid. At the very least,
we should strictly avoid patching behavior layers down in the stack of what
is being tested.
I'd be happy with punting on a best practice to eradicate mock.patch as
long as we accept that patching things N layers deep in the call stack (for
N > 1) is an anti-pattern that we need to scrub our code of.
-=Bill
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Kevin Sweeney <
kswee...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
> Brian and Bill, do you have any thoughts here?
>
> On Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That's a fairly contrived example though, as most Java classes don't
> expose
> > a mechanism for injecting mocks.
> >
> > I think points #3 and #4 make the strongest case for why we'd want to
> avoid
> > this (though I don't believe we currently run tests in parallel so #4 is
> > more of a nice-to-have). If it's generally limited to additional method
> > args (and the review pointed at here is an outlier due to the way
> > @app.command works) I'm on board.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Kevin Sweeney
> > <kswee...@twitter.com.invalid
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think this a dynamic vs static language thing - if this were
> Java
> > > we could just as easily do
> > >
> > > public class MyTest {
> > > private PrintStream oldSystemOut;
> > >
> > > @Before
> > > public void setUp() {
> > > oldSystemOut = System.out;
> > > System.setOut(mockPrintStream);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @After
> > > public void tearDown() {
> > > System.setOut(oldSystemOut);
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > in our tests but that's mutable global state and makes our code brittle
> > for
> > > exactly the same 4 reasons as above.
> > >
> > > I don't think there's anything about Python that makes mutable global
> > state
> > > an inherently better idea.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm actually waffling on my stance. I tried to frame it mentally in
> the
> > > > context of how I'd handle the same use case in javascript (a language
> > I'm
> > > > much more comfortable with than Python), and I'd have a hard time
> > arguing
> > > > in favor of a similar mechanism there (e.g. in node.js patching
> require
> > > to
> > > > globally inject a mock, ugh). I think my objection in the case of
> this
> > > > review is more due @app.command forcing us to delegate the injection
> to
> > > an
> > > > extracted method.
> > > >
> > > > I tried to get a feel for what was more "pythonic" by searching for
> > uses
> > > of
> > > > @mock.patch versus an injected mock from create_autospec on GitHub.
> The
> > > > former was definitely more common, but there's plenty of cases of the
> > > > latter, and they looked cleaned enough to me. I'm leaning towards
> > lifting
> > > > my objection, though I'd love to hear thoughts from folks who have
> more
> > > > python experience (e.g. Brian, Joe) as well.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am with Joshua on this. The increased complexity and indirection
> is
> > > > > not the tradeoff I would fight for. The lack of coverage is a
> bigger
> > > > > problem in my opinion. Requiring patch-less unit tests may just
> > > > > encourage a proliferation of un-pythonic patterns and more
> obstacles
> > > > > on the way to improving our python code coverage.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Joshua Cohen <
> > jco...@twopensource.com <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > As I mentioned in that review, I'm not sold on the idea. I feel
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > > leads to a fair amount of extra code that exists solely to
> support
> > > > > testing.
> > > > > > One of the nice things about dynamic languages is they allow you
> to
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > this sort of boilerplate. The main problem in that review is just
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > wrong thing was being patched (instead of patching
> build_properties
> > > > > > directly we should have patched from_pex). That being said, I
> can't
> > > > > > actually argue against your points, they're all valid, I'm just
> not
> > > > > > convinced that they're worth the tradeoff ;).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Kevin Sweeney <
> kevi...@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi folks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I wanted to have a discussion about the usage of mock.patch in
> our
> > > > unit
> > > > > >> tests. In my opinion its use is a code smell versus writing
> > > production
> > > > > code
> > > > > >> to have explicit injection points for test dependencies.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The review at https://reviews.apache.org/r/28250/ is a good
> > example
> > > > of
> > > > > why
> > > > > >> I think the patch approach is brittle: in this case the test
> code
> > > > > patched
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> @patch('twitter.common.python.pex.PexInfo.build_properties',
> > > > > >> new_callable=PropertyMock)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> but the production code didn't actually call
> > > PexInfo.build_properties
> > > > -
> > > > > >> rather it called PexInfo.from_pex, which usually returns a
> PexInfo
> > > > > >> instance, which has a build_properties property. So this test
> only
> > > > > worked
> > > > > >> when PexInfo.from_pex(sys.argv[0]) actually returned a valid
> > > PexInfo,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> due to the way patching works there's no way to ensure that the
> > > > > >> function-under-test was the one calling the mocked method.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In my opinion an explicit injection approach is preferable, via
> > the
> > > > use
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> defaulted private method parameters like:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> def production_function(arg1, arg2, ..., _print=print,
> > > > > >> _from_pex=PexInfo.from_pex):
> > > > > >> # use _print, _from_pex
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> class ProductionClass(object):
> > > > > >> def __init__(self, arg1, arg2, ..., _print=print,
> > > > > >> _from_pex=PexInfo.from_pex):
> > > > > >> self._print = _print
> > > > > >> self._from_pex = _from_pex
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> def method(self):
> > > > > >> # Use self._print, self._from_pex, etc
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Then tests can explicitly replace the dependencies of the
> > > > > unit-under-test
> > > > > >> with mocks:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> def test_production_function():
> > > > > >> mock_print = create_autospec(print, spec_set=True)
> > > > > >> mock_pex_info = create_autospec(PexInfo, instance=True,
> > > > spec_set=True)
> > > > > >> mock_from_pex = create_autospec(PexInfo.from_pex,
> spec_set=True,
> > > > > >> return_value=mock_pex_info)
> > > > > >> mock_pex_info.build_properties = {}
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> production_function(arg1, arg2, ..., _print=mock_print,
> > > > > >> _from_pex=mock_from_pex)
> > > > > >> # or
> > > > > >> prod = ProductionClass(arg1, arg2, ..., _print=mock_print,
> > > > > >> _from_pex=mock_from_pex)
> > > > > >> prod.method()
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> mock_print.assert_called_once_with("Some string")
> > > > > >> # other assertions about what the class-under-test did with
> the
> > > > mocked
> > > > > >> deps
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> There are a good number of properties that this allows:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1. No unused dependencies - if a parameter is unused the linter
> > will
> > > > > still
> > > > > >> complain
> > > > > >> 2. Can't mock out something the unit-under-test isn't actually
> > > using -
> > > > > if
> > > > > >> you give a kwarg parameter that isn't defined the test will
> raise
> > a
> > > > > >> TypeError
> > > > > >> 3. No action-at-a-distance - you can't mock the
> > > > > dependency-of-a-dependency
> > > > > >> (in this case PexInfo.build_properties instead of
> > PexInfo.from_pex)
> > > > > >> 4. Thread-safety - patch is not thread-safe as it's temporarily
> > > > > replacing
> > > > > >> global state for the duration of the test.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'd like to propose that we consider use of mock.patch in our
> > tests
> > > to
> > > > > be a
> > > > > >> code smell that should be refactored to use explicit injection
> at
> > > our
> > > > > >> earliest convenience
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin Sweeney
> > > @kts
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
