> 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 lucky to have the chance to explain this while fixing a related > > bug. > > >> You can refer to the changes in this PR: > > >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/52905 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 2025년 7월 5일 (토) 오후 8:09, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>님이 작성: > > >> > > >> > Just post how you think the test should be written :) > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 1:08 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I already mentioned it in slack - but how would you propose to > > rewrite > > >> > the > > >> > > "mixed" case to be more consistent ? > > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, Jul 5, 2025 at 12:47 PM Kyungjun Lee < > > >> kyungjunlee...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi all, > > >> > >> > > >> > >> While reviewing and contributing to Airflow tests, I’ve noticed > an > > >> > >> inconsistency in how assertions are written. Some tests use > > >> > >> `unittest`-style assertions like `mock.assert_called_once_with`, > > >> while > > >> > >> others use plain `assert` statements in the `pytest` style. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Here's an example of a test using the mixed style: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ```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_http_run, mock_paginate, 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() > > >> > >> ``` > > >> > >> > > >> > >> In IDEs and type-checkers (like PyCharm or MyPy), this sometimes > > >> causes > > >> > >> weak warnings > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ``` > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Cannot find reference 'assert_called_once_with' in 'function' > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ``` > > >> > >> > > >> > >> This could confuse newcomers or contributors unfamiliar with > > mocking > > >> > >> behavior or type limitations in dynamic typing. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> To improve clarity and accessibility for contributors—especially > > >> those > > >> > new > > >> > >> to the project—I’d like to propose *moving toward consistent use > of > > >> > plain > > >> > >> assert statements* for test validations wherever possible. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> *Proposed Benefits*: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> - > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Easier onboarding for first-time contributors > > >> > >> - > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Better IDE support and fewer confusing warnings > > >> > >> - > > >> > >> > > >> > >> More consistent and readable test style across the project > > >> > >> > > >> > >> I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this direction makes > > sense > > >> for > > >> > >> the project. If agreed, I’d also be happy to help align existing > > >> tests > > >> > >> gradually. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks! > > >> > >> Kyungjun Lee > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
