Reviewed. This seems to be an omission that needs to fixed, thanks for the PR! Almost good to go in 3.8. As for 3.7, this isn't a bug fix it's up to Ned if he wants to accept it.
Yury On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 8:02 AM Anthony Flury via Python-Dev < python-dev@python.org> wrote: > All, > Can someone please review Pull Request 5974 > <https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/5974> on Python3.8 - the Pull > request was submitted on 4th March - this pull request is associated > with bpo-32933 <https://bugs.python.org/issue32933> > To summarize the point of this pull request: > It fixes a bug of omission within mock_open > < https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html?highlight=mock_open#unittest.mock.mock_open > (part of unittest.mock) > The functionality of mock_open enables the test code to mock a file > being opened with some data which can be read. Importantly, mock_open > has a read_data attrribute which can be used to specify the data to read > from the file. > The mocked file which is opened correctly supports file.read(), > file.readlines(), file.readline(). These all make use of the read_data > as expected, and the mocked file also supports being opened as a context > manager. > But the mock_open file does not support iteration - so pythonic code > which uses a for loop to iterate around the file content will only ever > appear to iterate around an empty file, regardless of the read_data > attribute when the mock_open is created > So non-pythonic methods to iterate around the file contents - such as > this : > data = opened_file.readlines() > for line in data: > process_line(line) > and this : > line = opened_file.readline() > while line: > process_line(line) > line = opened_file.readline() > Can both be tested with the mocked file containing simulated data (using > the read_data attribute) as expected. > But this code (which by any standard is the 'correct' way to iterate > around the file content of a text file): > for line in opened_file: > process_line(line) > Will only ever appear to iterate around an empty file when tested using > mock_open. > I would like this to be reviewed so it can be back-ported into Python3.7 > and 3.6 if at all possible. I know that the bug has existed since the > original version of mock_open, but it does seem strange that code under > test which uses a pythonic code structure can't be fully tested fully > using the standard library. > -- > Anthony Flury > email : *anthony.fl...@btinternet.com* > Twitter : *@TonyFlury <https://twitter.com/TonyFlury/>* > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/yselivanov.ml%40gmail.com -- Yury _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
