From discussion on #3500.
There are a bunch of manually-defined stub classes in place throughout the codebase. Suggested pros for replacement:
mock.Mock confines to the test what the expectation is, using a format that contributors are going to be familiar with. Having to look up should not be necessary.
- Improved / standardized assertions (
assert_called_once_with and friends).
Cons:
- Lots of churn, potentially introducing bugs.
- DRYing out frequently-used mock setups means that users still have to go look up the helper, rather than a class: the class can be more "transparent" than the imperative setup (e.g., just add a class-scope attribute, rather than adjusting both the value passed to the mock and its
scope).
From discussion on #3500.
There are a bunch of manually-defined stub classes in place throughout the codebase. Suggested pros for replacement:
mock.Mockconfines to the test what the expectation is, using a format that contributors are going to be familiar with. Having to look up should not be necessary.assert_called_once_withand friends).Cons:
scope).