I want to lead this discussion!!!
2025년 7월 11일 (금) 오후 6:18, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com>님이 작성:
> 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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
