| \section{\module{doctest} --- |
| Test docstrings represent reality} |
| |
| \declaremodule{standard}{doctest} |
| \moduleauthor{Tim Peters}{tim_one@users.sourceforge.net} |
| \sectionauthor{Tim Peters}{tim_one@users.sourceforge.net} |
| \sectionauthor{Moshe Zadka}{moshez@debian.org} |
| |
| \modulesynopsis{A framework for verifying examples in docstrings.} |
| |
| The \module{doctest} module searches a module's docstrings for text that looks |
| like an interactive Python session, then executes all such sessions to verify |
| they still work exactly as shown. Here's a complete but small example: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| """ |
| This is module example. |
| |
| Example supplies one function, factorial. For example, |
| |
| >>> factorial(5) |
| 120 |
| """ |
| |
| def factorial(n): |
| """Return the factorial of n, an exact integer >= 0. |
| |
| If the result is small enough to fit in an int, return an int. |
| Else return a long. |
| |
| >>> [factorial(n) for n in range(6)] |
| [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120] |
| >>> [factorial(long(n)) for n in range(6)] |
| [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120] |
| >>> factorial(30) |
| 265252859812191058636308480000000L |
| >>> factorial(30L) |
| 265252859812191058636308480000000L |
| >>> factorial(-1) |
| Traceback (most recent call last): |
| ... |
| ValueError: n must be >= 0 |
| |
| Factorials of floats are OK, but the float must be an exact integer: |
| >>> factorial(30.1) |
| Traceback (most recent call last): |
| ... |
| ValueError: n must be exact integer |
| >>> factorial(30.0) |
| 265252859812191058636308480000000L |
| |
| It must also not be ridiculously large: |
| >>> factorial(1e100) |
| Traceback (most recent call last): |
| ... |
| OverflowError: n too large |
| """ |
| |
| \end{verbatim} |
| % allow LaTeX to break here. |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| |
| import math |
| if not n >= 0: |
| raise ValueError("n must be >= 0") |
| if math.floor(n) != n: |
| raise ValueError("n must be exact integer") |
| if n+1 == n: # e.g., 1e300 |
| raise OverflowError("n too large") |
| result = 1 |
| factor = 2 |
| while factor <= n: |
| try: |
| result *= factor |
| except OverflowError: |
| result *= long(factor) |
| factor += 1 |
| return result |
| |
| def _test(): |
| import doctest, example |
| return doctest.testmod(example) |
| |
| if __name__ == "__main__": |
| _test() |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| If you run \file{example.py} directly from the command line, doctest works |
| its magic: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| $ python example.py |
| $ |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| There's no output! That's normal, and it means all the examples worked. |
| Pass \programopt{-v} to the script, and doctest prints a detailed log |
| of what it's trying, and prints a summary at the end: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| $ python example.py -v |
| Running example.__doc__ |
| Trying: factorial(5) |
| Expecting: 120 |
| ok |
| 0 of 1 examples failed in example.__doc__ |
| Running example.factorial.__doc__ |
| Trying: [factorial(n) for n in range(6)] |
| Expecting: [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120] |
| ok |
| Trying: [factorial(long(n)) for n in range(6)] |
| Expecting: [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120] |
| ok |
| Trying: factorial(30) |
| Expecting: 265252859812191058636308480000000L |
| ok |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| And so on, eventually ending with: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| Trying: factorial(1e100) |
| Expecting: |
| Traceback (most recent call last): |
| ... |
| OverflowError: n too large |
| ok |
| 0 of 8 examples failed in example.factorial.__doc__ |
| 2 items passed all tests: |
| 1 tests in example |
| 8 tests in example.factorial |
| 9 tests in 2 items. |
| 9 passed and 0 failed. |
| Test passed. |
| $ |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| That's all you need to know to start making productive use of doctest! Jump |
| in. The docstrings in doctest.py contain detailed information about all |
| aspects of doctest, and we'll just cover the more important points here. |
| |
| \subsection{Normal Usage} |
| |
| In normal use, end each module \module{M} with: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| def _test(): |
| import doctest, M # replace M with your module's name |
| return doctest.testmod(M) # ditto |
| |
| if __name__ == "__main__": |
| _test() |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Then running the module as a script causes the examples in the docstrings |
| to get executed and verified: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| python M.py |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| This won't display anything unless an example fails, in which case the |
| failing example(s) and the cause(s) of the failure(s) are printed to stdout, |
| and the final line of output is \code{'Test failed.'}. |
| |
| Run it with the \programopt{-v} switch instead: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| python M.py -v |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| and a detailed report of all examples tried is printed to \code{stdout}, |
| along with assorted summaries at the end. |
| |
| You can force verbose mode by passing \code{verbose=1} to testmod, or |
| prohibit it by passing \code{verbose=0}. In either of those cases, |
| \code{sys.argv} is not examined by testmod. |
| |
| In any case, testmod returns a 2-tuple of ints \code{(\var{f}, |
| \var{t})}, where \var{f} is the number of docstring examples that |
| failed and \var{t} is the total number of docstring examples |
| attempted. |
| |
| \subsection{Which Docstrings Are Examined?} |
| |
| See \file{docstring.py} for all the details. They're unsurprising: the |
| module docstring, and all function, class and method docstrings are |
| searched, with the exception of docstrings attached to objects with private |
| names. |
| |
| In addition, if \code{M.__test__} exists and "is true", it must be a |
| dict, and each entry maps a (string) name to a function object, class |
| object, or string. Function and class object docstrings found from |
| \code{M.__test__} are searched even if the name is private, and |
| strings are searched directly as if they were docstrings. In output, |
| a key \code{K} in \code{M.__test__} appears with name |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| <name of M>.__test__.K |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Any classes found are recursively searched similarly, to test docstrings in |
| their contained methods and nested classes. While private names reached |
| from \module{M}'s globals are skipped, all names reached from |
| \code{M.__test__} are searched. |
| |
| \subsection{What's the Execution Context?} |
| |
| By default, each time testmod finds a docstring to test, it uses a |
| \emph{copy} of \module{M}'s globals, so that running tests on a module |
| doesn't change the module's real globals, and so that one test in |
| \module{M} can't leave behind crumbs that accidentally allow another test |
| to work. This means examples can freely use any names defined at top-level |
| in \module{M}, and names defined earlier in the docstring being run. It |
| also means that sloppy imports (see below) can cause examples in external |
| docstrings to use globals inappropriate for them. |
| |
| You can force use of your own dict as the execution context by passing |
| \code{globs=your_dict} to \function{testmod()} instead. Presumably this |
| would be a copy of \code{M.__dict__} merged with the globals from other |
| imported modules. |
| |
| \subsection{What About Exceptions?} |
| |
| No problem, as long as the only output generated by the example is the |
| traceback itself. For example: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> [1, 2, 3].remove(42) |
| Traceback (most recent call last): |
| File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? |
| ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list |
| >>> |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Note that only the exception type and value are compared (specifically, |
| only the last line in the traceback). The various ``File'' lines in |
| between can be left out (unless they add significantly to the documentation |
| value of the example). |
| |
| \subsection{Advanced Usage} |
| |
| \function{testmod()} actually creates a local instance of class |
| \class{Tester}, runs appropriate methods of that class, and merges |
| the results into global \class{Tester} instance \code{master}. |
| |
| You can create your own instances of \class{Tester}, and so build your |
| own policies, or even run methods of \code{master} directly. See |
| \code{Tester.__doc__} for details. |
| |
| |
| \subsection{How are Docstring Examples Recognized?} |
| |
| In most cases a copy-and-paste of an interactive console session works fine |
| --- just make sure the leading whitespace is rigidly consistent (you can mix |
| tabs and spaces if you're too lazy to do it right, but doctest is not in |
| the business of guessing what you think a tab means). |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> # comments are ignored |
| >>> x = 12 |
| >>> x |
| 12 |
| >>> if x == 13: |
| ... print "yes" |
| ... else: |
| ... print "no" |
| ... print "NO" |
| ... print "NO!!!" |
| ... |
| no |
| NO |
| NO!!! |
| >>> |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Any expected output must immediately follow the final |
| \code{'>\code{>}>~'} or \code{'...~'} line containing the code, and |
| the expected output (if any) extends to the next \code{'>\code{>}>~'} |
| or all-whitespace line. |
| |
| The fine print: |
| |
| \begin{itemize} |
| |
| \item Expected output cannot contain an all-whitespace line, since such a |
| line is taken to signal the end of expected output. |
| |
| \item Output to stdout is captured, but not output to stderr (exception |
| tracebacks are captured via a different means). |
| |
| \item If you continue a line via backslashing in an interactive session, or |
| for any other reason use a backslash, you need to double the backslash in |
| the docstring version. This is simply because you're in a string, and so |
| the backslash must be escaped for it to survive intact. Like: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> if "yes" == \\ |
| ... "y" + \\ |
| ... "es": |
| ... print 'yes' |
| yes |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| \item The starting column doesn't matter: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> assert "Easy!" |
| >>> import math |
| >>> math.floor(1.9) |
| 1.0 |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| and as many leading whitespace characters are stripped from the |
| expected output as appeared in the initial \code{'>\code{>}>~'} line |
| that triggered it. |
| \end{itemize} |
| |
| \subsection{Warnings} |
| |
| \begin{enumerate} |
| |
| \item Sloppy imports can cause trouble; e.g., if you do |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| from XYZ import XYZclass |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| then \class{XYZclass} is a name in \code{M.__dict__} too, and doctest |
| has no way to know that \class{XYZclass} wasn't \emph{defined} in |
| \module{M}. So it may try to execute the examples in |
| \class{XYZclass}'s docstring, and those in turn may require a |
| different set of globals to work correctly. I prefer to do |
| ``\code{import *}''-friendly imports, a la |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| from XYZ import XYZclass as _XYZclass |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| and then the leading underscore makes \class{_XYZclass} a private name so |
| testmod skips it by default. Other approaches are described in |
| \file{doctest.py}. |
| |
| \item \module{doctest} is serious about requiring exact matches in expected |
| output. If even a single character doesn't match, the test fails. This |
| will probably surprise you a few times, as you learn exactly what Python |
| does and doesn't guarantee about output. For example, when printing a |
| dict, Python doesn't guarantee that the key-value pairs will be printed |
| in any particular order, so a test like |
| |
| % Hey! What happened to Monty Python examples? |
| % Tim: ask Guido -- it's his example! |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> foo() |
| {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"} |
| >>> |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| is vulnerable! One workaround is to do |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> foo() == {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"} |
| 1 |
| >>> |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| instead. Another is to do |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> d = foo().items() |
| >>> d.sort() |
| >>> d |
| [('Harry', 'broomstick'), ('Hermione', 'hippogryph')] |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| There are others, but you get the idea. |
| |
| Another bad idea is to print things that embed an object address, like |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> id(1.0) # certain to fail some of the time |
| 7948648 |
| >>> |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Floating-point numbers are also subject to small output variations across |
| platforms, because Python defers to the platform C library for float |
| formatting, and C libraries vary widely in quality here. |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> 1./7 # risky |
| 0.14285714285714285 |
| >>> print 1./7 # safer |
| 0.142857142857 |
| >>> print round(1./7, 6) # much safer |
| 0.142857 |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Numbers of the form \code{I/2.**J} are safe across all platforms, and I |
| often contrive doctest examples to produce numbers of that form: |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| >>> 3./4 # utterly safe |
| 0.75 |
| \end{verbatim} |
| |
| Simple fractions are also easier for people to understand, and that makes |
| for better documentation. |
| |
| \item Be careful if you have code that must only execute once. |
| |
| If you have module-level code that must only execute once, a more foolproof |
| definition of \function{_test()} is |
| |
| \begin{verbatim} |
| def _test(): |
| import doctest, sys |
| doctest.testmod(sys.modules["__main__"]) |
| \end{verbatim} |
| \end{enumerate} |
| |
| |
| \subsection{Soapbox} |
| |
| The first word in doctest is "doc", and that's why the author wrote |
| doctest: to keep documentation up to date. It so happens that doctest |
| makes a pleasant unit testing environment, but that's not its primary |
| purpose. |
| |
| Choose docstring examples with care. There's an art to this that needs to |
| be learned --- it may not be natural at first. Examples should add genuine |
| value to the documentation. A good example can often be worth many words. |
| If possible, show just a few normal cases, show endcases, show interesting |
| subtle cases, and show an example of each kind of exception that can be |
| raised. You're probably testing for endcases and subtle cases anyway in an |
| interactive shell: doctest wants to make it as easy as possible to capture |
| those sessions, and will verify they continue to work as designed forever |
| after. |
| |
| If done with care, the examples will be invaluable for your users, and will |
| pay back the time it takes to collect them many times over as the years go |
| by and "things change". I'm still amazed at how often one of my doctest |
| examples stops working after a "harmless" change. |
| |
| For exhaustive testing, or testing boring cases that add no value to the |
| docs, define a \code{__test__} dict instead. That's what it's for. |