Skip to content

bpo-40331: Increase test coverage for the statistics module #19608

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
taleinat merged 10 commits into from
May 13, 2020
Merged

bpo-40331: Increase test coverage for the statistics module #19608

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
ccd8bef
bpo-40331: increase test coverage for the statistics module
tzabal Apr 19, 2020
21084c1
Add a News entry using the blurb tool
tzabal Apr 19, 2020
49def61
Revert cosmetic change in docstring
tzabal Apr 19, 2020
b2b9844
Remove the News entry
tzabal Apr 20, 2020
50a843f
Use assertRaises as a context manager in the tests
tzabal Apr 25, 2020
bbe16bd
Use assertRaisesRegex in the test_single_value_unsupported_type test
tzabal Apr 26, 2020
74b047a
Add test for inputs with multiple mixed valid/invalid values
tzabal Apr 26, 2020
1a5c2df
Rename tests and remove comments as requested in review
tzabal Apr 26, 2020
ac8b586
Combine two unit tests into one
tzabal Apr 26, 2020
ee55b16
Use subTest in tests with 3 or more cases
tzabal Apr 27, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
Rename tests and remove comments as requested in review
  • Loading branch information
@tzabal
tzabal committed Apr 26, 2020
commit 1a5c2dff0c98ca23ca3b16ea45e28c6c0fbcd0da
16 changes: 8 additions & 8 deletions Lib/test/test_statistics.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ def test_nan(self):
x = statistics._convert(nan, type(nan))
self.assertTrue(_nan_equal(x, nan))

def test_raise_type_error(self):
def test_invalid_input_type(self):
with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
statistics._convert(None, float)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1040,11 +1040,11 @@ def test_error_msg(self):
class FindLteqTest(unittest.TestCase):
# Test _find_lteq private function.

def test_raise_value_error(self):
def test_invalid_input_values(self):
for a, x in [
([], 1), # empty a triggers `i != len(a)`
([1, 2], 3), # non-existing max value triggers `i != len(a)`
([1, 3], 2) # non-existing value triggers `a[i] == x`
([], 1),
([1, 2], 3),
([1, 3], 2)
]:
with self.assertRaises(ValueError):
statistics._find_lteq(a, x)
Expand All @@ -1063,8 +1063,8 @@ class FindRteqTest(unittest.TestCase):

def test_raise_value_error(self):

@taleinat taleinat Apr 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this test method could also be renamed, similarly to the previous ones.

@tzabal tzabal Apr 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I should have changed this too.

for a, l, x in [
([1], 2, 1), # when l=len(a)+1 triggers `i != (len(a)+1)`
([1, 3], 0, 2) # non-existing value triggers `a[i-1] == x`
([1], 2, 1),
([1, 3], 0, 2)
]:
with self.assertRaises(ValueError):
statistics._find_rteq(a, l, x)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1522,7 +1522,7 @@ def test_negative_error(self):
self.assertRaises(exc, self.func, values)

def test_single_value_unsupported_type(self):
with self.assertRaisesRegex(TypeError, '^unsupported type$'):
with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
self.func(['3.14'])

def test_multiple_values_type_error(self):

@taleinat taleinat Apr 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This could be combined with the previous test method.

@tzabal tzabal Apr 26, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed, now they assert the same behavior, with the same way. I will combine them under a test with name test_invalid_type_error.

Expand Down