Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] The 'spec' parameter of mock.patch()

2014-01-10 Thread Nachi Ueno 
+1 but fixing this looks like take not small time

2014/1/10 Maru Newby :
> I recently saw a case [1] where a misspelled assertion method 
> (asoptt_called_once_with vs assert_called_once_with) did not result in a test 
> failure because the object it was called on was created by mock.patch() 
> without any of the spec/spec_set/autospec parameters being set.  Might it 
> make sense to require that calls to mock.patch() set autospec=True [2]?
>
>
> m.
>
> 1: 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61105/7/neutron/tests/unit/openvswitch/test_ovs_lib.py
>  (line 162)
> 2: http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/mock/patch.html#mock.patch
>
>
> ___
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [Neutron][qa] The 'spec' parameter of mock.patch()

2014-01-10 Thread Maru Newby 
I recently saw a case [1] where a misspelled assertion method 
(asoptt_called_once_with vs assert_called_once_with) did not result in a test 
failure because the object it was called on was created by mock.patch() without 
any of the spec/spec_set/autospec parameters being set.  Might it make sense to 
require that calls to mock.patch() set autospec=True [2]?


m.

1: 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61105/7/neutron/tests/unit/openvswitch/test_ovs_lib.py
 (line 162)
2: http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/mock/patch.html#mock.patch


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev