Perhaps you can set via configure_mock. This will prevent conflict with existing code.
Julien On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:17 PM Victor Stinner <[email protected]> wrote: > A stricter mock object cannot be a bad idea :-) I am not sure about your > proposed API: some random code may already use this attribute. Maybe it can > be a seal (mock) function which sets a secret attribute with a less common > name? > > Yeah, please open an issue on bugs.python.org ;-) > > Victor > > > Le 29 mai 2017 11:33 PM, "Mario Corchero" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Hello Everyone! >> >> First time writing to python-ideas. >> >> *Overview* >> Add a new mock class within the mock module >> <https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Lib/unittest/mock.py>, >> SealedMock (or RestrictedMock) that allows to restrict in a dynamic and >> recursive way the addition of attributes to it. The new class just defines >> a special attribute "sealed" which once set to True the behaviour of >> automatically creating mocks is blocked, as well as for all its "submocks". >> See sealedmock >> <https://github.com/mariocj89/sealedmock/blob/master/README.md>. Don't >> focus on the implementation, it is ugly, it would be much simpler within >> *mock.py*. >> >> *Rationale* >> Inspired by GMock >> <https://github.com/google/googletest/tree/master/googlemock> RestrictedMock, >> SealedMock aims to allow the developer to define a narrow interface to the >> mock that defines what the mocks allows to be called on. >> The feature of mocks returning mocks by default is extremely useful but >> not always desired. Quite often you rely on it only at the time you are >> writing the test but you want it to be disabled at the time the mock is >> passed into your code, that is what SealedMock aims to address. >> >> This solution also prevents user errors when mocking incorrect paths or >> having typos when calling attributes/methods of the mock. >> We have tried it internally in our company and it gives quite a nicer >> user experience for many use cases, specially for new users of mock as it >> helps out when you mock the wrong path. >> >> *Alternatives* >> >> - Using auto_spec/spec is a possible solution but removes flexibility >> and is rather painful to write for each of the mocks and submocks being >> used. >> - Leaving it outside of the mock.py as it is not interesting enough. >> I am fine with it :) just proposing it in case you think otherwise. >> - Make it part of the standard Mock base class. Works for me, but I'd >> concerned on how can we do it in a backward compatible way. (Say someone >> is >> mocking something that has a "sealed" attribute already). >> >> Let me know what you think, happy to open a enhancement in >> https://bugs.python.org/ and send a PR. >> >> Regards, >> Mario >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >> _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
