blob: d2a2ed310b05d79deaddd520925f772c46657f92 [file] [log] [blame]
Benjamin Petersonee8712c2008-05-20 21:35:26 +00001from test import support, seq_tests
Zachary Wareac28b792015-12-04 23:32:23 -06002import unittest
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +00003
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +00004import gc
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +00005import pickle
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +00006
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -06007# For tuple hashes, we normally only run a test to ensure that we get
8# the same results across platforms in a handful of cases. If that's
9# so, there's no real point to running more. Set RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS to
10# run more anyway. That's usually of real interest only when analyzing,
11# or changing, the hash algorithm. In which case it's usually also
12# most useful to set JUST_SHOW_HASH_RESULTS, to see all the results
13# instead of wrestling with test "failures". See the bottom of the
14# file for extensive notes on what we're testing here and why.
15RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS = False
16JUST_SHOW_HASH_RESULTS = False # if RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS, just display
17
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000018class TupleTest(seq_tests.CommonTest):
19 type2test = tuple
20
Terry Jan Reedyffff1442014-08-02 01:30:37 -040021 def test_getitem_error(self):
Serhiy Storchaka8e79e6e2019-02-19 13:49:09 +020022 t = ()
Terry Jan Reedyffff1442014-08-02 01:30:37 -040023 msg = "tuple indices must be integers or slices"
24 with self.assertRaisesRegex(TypeError, msg):
Serhiy Storchaka8e79e6e2019-02-19 13:49:09 +020025 t['a']
Terry Jan Reedyffff1442014-08-02 01:30:37 -040026
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000027 def test_constructors(self):
Éric Araujoa63c2402010-12-23 19:13:05 +000028 super().test_constructors()
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000029 # calling built-in types without argument must return empty
30 self.assertEqual(tuple(), ())
Christian Heimes81ee3ef2008-05-04 22:42:01 +000031 t0_3 = (0, 1, 2, 3)
32 t0_3_bis = tuple(t0_3)
Benjamin Petersonc9c0f202009-06-30 23:06:06 +000033 self.assertTrue(t0_3 is t0_3_bis)
Christian Heimes81ee3ef2008-05-04 22:42:01 +000034 self.assertEqual(tuple([]), ())
35 self.assertEqual(tuple([0, 1, 2, 3]), (0, 1, 2, 3))
36 self.assertEqual(tuple(''), ())
37 self.assertEqual(tuple('spam'), ('s', 'p', 'a', 'm'))
Serhiy Storchaka58d23e62017-03-06 00:53:39 +020038 self.assertEqual(tuple(x for x in range(10) if x % 2),
39 (1, 3, 5, 7, 9))
40
41 def test_keyword_args(self):
Serhiy Storchaka2e564242017-03-06 17:01:06 +020042 with self.assertRaisesRegex(TypeError, 'keyword argument'):
43 tuple(sequence=())
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000044
45 def test_truth(self):
Guido van Rossumcd16bf62007-06-13 18:07:49 +000046 super().test_truth()
Benjamin Petersonc9c0f202009-06-30 23:06:06 +000047 self.assertTrue(not ())
48 self.assertTrue((42, ))
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000049
50 def test_len(self):
Guido van Rossumcd16bf62007-06-13 18:07:49 +000051 super().test_len()
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000052 self.assertEqual(len(()), 0)
53 self.assertEqual(len((0,)), 1)
54 self.assertEqual(len((0, 1, 2)), 3)
55
56 def test_iadd(self):
Guido van Rossumcd16bf62007-06-13 18:07:49 +000057 super().test_iadd()
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000058 u = (0, 1)
59 u2 = u
60 u += (2, 3)
Benjamin Petersonc9c0f202009-06-30 23:06:06 +000061 self.assertTrue(u is not u2)
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000062
63 def test_imul(self):
Guido van Rossumcd16bf62007-06-13 18:07:49 +000064 super().test_imul()
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000065 u = (0, 1)
66 u2 = u
67 u *= 3
Benjamin Petersonc9c0f202009-06-30 23:06:06 +000068 self.assertTrue(u is not u2)
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000069
70 def test_tupleresizebug(self):
71 # Check that a specific bug in _PyTuple_Resize() is squashed.
72 def f():
73 for i in range(1000):
74 yield i
Guido van Rossum805365e2007-05-07 22:24:25 +000075 self.assertEqual(list(tuple(f())), list(range(1000)))
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +000076
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -060077 # We expect tuples whose base components have deterministic hashes to
78 # have deterministic hashes too - and, indeed, the same hashes across
79 # platforms with hash codes of the same bit width.
80 def test_hash_exact(self):
81 def check_one_exact(t, e32, e64):
82 got = hash(t)
83 expected = e32 if support.NHASHBITS == 32 else e64
84 if got != expected:
85 msg = f"FAIL hash({t!r}) == {got} != {expected}"
86 self.fail(msg)
87
88 check_one_exact((), 750394483, 5740354900026072187)
89 check_one_exact((0,), 1214856301, -8753497827991233192)
90 check_one_exact((0, 0), -168982784, -8458139203682520985)
91 check_one_exact((0.5,), 2077348973, -408149959306781352)
92 check_one_exact((0.5, (), (-2, 3, (4, 6))), 714642271,
93 -1845940830829704396)
94
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +020095 # Various tests for hashing of tuples to check that we get few collisions.
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -060096 # Does something only if RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS is true.
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +020097 #
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -060098 # Earlier versions of the tuple hash algorithm had massive collisions
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +020099 # reported at:
100 # - https://bugs.python.org/issue942952
101 # - https://bugs.python.org/issue34751
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600102 def test_hash_optional(self):
103 from itertools import product
104
105 if not RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS:
106 return
107
108 # If specified, `expected` is a 2-tuple of expected
109 # (number_of_collisions, pileup) values, and the test fails if
110 # those aren't the values we get. Also if specified, the test
111 # fails if z > `zlimit`.
112 def tryone_inner(tag, nbins, hashes, expected=None, zlimit=None):
113 from collections import Counter
114
115 nballs = len(hashes)
116 mean, sdev = support.collision_stats(nbins, nballs)
117 c = Counter(hashes)
118 collisions = nballs - len(c)
119 z = (collisions - mean) / sdev
120 pileup = max(c.values()) - 1
121 del c
122 got = (collisions, pileup)
123 failed = False
124 prefix = ""
125 if zlimit is not None and z > zlimit:
126 failed = True
127 prefix = f"FAIL z > {zlimit}; "
128 if expected is not None and got != expected:
129 failed = True
130 prefix += f"FAIL {got} != {expected}; "
131 if failed or JUST_SHOW_HASH_RESULTS:
132 msg = f"{prefix}{tag}; pileup {pileup:,} mean {mean:.1f} "
133 msg += f"coll {collisions:,} z {z:+.1f}"
134 if JUST_SHOW_HASH_RESULTS:
135 import sys
136 print(msg, file=sys.__stdout__)
137 else:
138 self.fail(msg)
139
140 def tryone(tag, xs,
141 native32=None, native64=None, hi32=None, lo32=None,
142 zlimit=None):
143 NHASHBITS = support.NHASHBITS
144 hashes = list(map(hash, xs))
145 tryone_inner(tag + f"; {NHASHBITS}-bit hash codes",
146 1 << NHASHBITS,
147 hashes,
148 native32 if NHASHBITS == 32 else native64,
149 zlimit)
150
151 if NHASHBITS > 32:
152 shift = NHASHBITS - 32
153 tryone_inner(tag + "; 32-bit upper hash codes",
154 1 << 32,
155 [h >> shift for h in hashes],
156 hi32,
157 zlimit)
158
159 mask = (1 << 32) - 1
160 tryone_inner(tag + "; 32-bit lower hash codes",
161 1 << 32,
162 [h & mask for h in hashes],
163 lo32,
164 zlimit)
165
166 # Tuples of smallish positive integers are common - nice if we
167 # get "better than random" for these.
168 tryone("range(100) by 3", list(product(range(100), repeat=3)),
169 (0, 0), (0, 0), (4, 1), (0, 0))
170
171 # A previous hash had systematic problems when mixing integers of
172 # similar magnitude but opposite sign, obscurely related to that
173 # j ^ -2 == -j when j is odd.
174 cands = list(range(-10, -1)) + list(range(9))
175
176 # Note: -1 is omitted because hash(-1) == hash(-2) == -2, and
177 # there's nothing the tuple hash can do to avoid collisions
178 # inherited from collisions in the tuple components' hashes.
179 tryone("-10 .. 8 by 4", list(product(cands, repeat=4)),
180 (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0))
181 del cands
182
183 # The hashes here are a weird mix of values where all the
184 # variation is in the lowest bits and across a single high-order
185 # bit - the middle bits are all zeroes. A decent hash has to
186 # both propagate low bits to the left and high bits to the
187 # right. This is also complicated a bit in that there are
188 # collisions among the hashes of the integers in L alone.
189 L = [n << 60 for n in range(100)]
190 tryone("0..99 << 60 by 3", list(product(L, repeat=3)),
191 (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0), (324, 1))
192 del L
193
194 # Used to suffer a massive number of collisions.
195 tryone("[-3, 3] by 18", list(product([-3, 3], repeat=18)),
196 (7, 1), (0, 0), (7, 1), (6, 1))
197
198 # And even worse. hash(0.5) has only a single bit set, at the
199 # high end. A decent hash needs to propagate high bits right.
200 tryone("[0, 0.5] by 18", list(product([0, 0.5], repeat=18)),
201 (5, 1), (0, 0), (9, 1), (12, 1))
202
203 # Hashes of ints and floats are the same across platforms.
204 # String hashes vary even on a single platform across runs, due
205 # to hash randomization for strings. So we can't say exactly
206 # what this should do. Instead we insist that the # of
207 # collisions is no more than 4 sdevs above the theoretically
208 # random mean. Even if the tuple hash can't achieve that on its
209 # own, the string hash is trying to be decently pseudo-random
210 # (in all bit positions) on _its_ own. We can at least test
211 # that the tuple hash doesn't systematically ruin that.
212 tryone("4-char tuples",
213 list(product("abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", repeat=4)),
214 zlimit=4.0)
215
216 # The "old tuple test". See https://bugs.python.org/issue942952.
217 # Ensures, for example, that the hash:
218 # is non-commutative
219 # spreads closely spaced values
220 # doesn't exhibit cancellation in tuples like (x,(x,y))
221 N = 50
Guido van Rossum805365e2007-05-07 22:24:25 +0000222 base = list(range(N))
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600223 xp = list(product(base, repeat=2))
224 inps = base + list(product(base, xp)) + \
225 list(product(xp, base)) + xp + list(zip(base))
226 tryone("old tuple test", inps,
227 (2, 1), (0, 0), (52, 49), (7, 1))
228 del base, xp, inps
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +0200229
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600230 # The "new tuple test". See https://bugs.python.org/issue34751.
231 # Even more tortured nesting, and a mix of signed ints of very
232 # small magnitude.
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +0200233 n = 5
234 A = [x for x in range(-n, n+1) if x != -1]
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +0200235 B = A + [(a,) for a in A]
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600236 L2 = list(product(A, repeat=2))
237 L3 = L2 + list(product(A, repeat=3))
238 L4 = L3 + list(product(A, repeat=4))
jdemeyeraeb1be52018-10-28 02:06:38 +0200239 # T = list of testcases. These consist of all (possibly nested
240 # at most 2 levels deep) tuples containing at most 4 items from
241 # the set A.
242 T = A
243 T += [(a,) for a in B + L4]
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600244 T += product(L3, B)
245 T += product(L2, repeat=2)
246 T += product(B, L3)
247 T += product(B, B, L2)
248 T += product(B, L2, B)
249 T += product(L2, B, B)
250 T += product(B, repeat=4)
251 assert len(T) == 345130
252 tryone("new tuple test", T,
253 (9, 1), (0, 0), (21, 5), (6, 1))
Walter Dörwald1dde95d2003-12-08 11:38:45 +0000254
Raymond Hettinger5ea7e312004-09-30 07:47:20 +0000255 def test_repr(self):
256 l0 = tuple()
257 l2 = (0, 1, 2)
258 a0 = self.type2test(l0)
259 a2 = self.type2test(l2)
260
261 self.assertEqual(str(a0), repr(l0))
262 self.assertEqual(str(a2), repr(l2))
263 self.assertEqual(repr(a0), "()")
264 self.assertEqual(repr(a2), "(0, 1, 2)")
265
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +0000266 def _not_tracked(self, t):
267 # Nested tuples can take several collections to untrack
268 gc.collect()
269 gc.collect()
270 self.assertFalse(gc.is_tracked(t), t)
271
272 def _tracked(self, t):
273 self.assertTrue(gc.is_tracked(t), t)
274 gc.collect()
275 gc.collect()
276 self.assertTrue(gc.is_tracked(t), t)
277
Benjamin Peterson02d78062010-06-27 22:44:51 +0000278 @support.cpython_only
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +0000279 def test_track_literals(self):
280 # Test GC-optimization of tuple literals
281 x, y, z = 1.5, "a", []
282
283 self._not_tracked(())
284 self._not_tracked((1,))
285 self._not_tracked((1, 2))
286 self._not_tracked((1, 2, "a"))
287 self._not_tracked((1, 2, (None, True, False, ()), int))
288 self._not_tracked((object(),))
289 self._not_tracked(((1, x), y, (2, 3)))
290
291 # Tuples with mutable elements are always tracked, even if those
292 # elements are not tracked right now.
293 self._tracked(([],))
294 self._tracked(([1],))
295 self._tracked(({},))
296 self._tracked((set(),))
297 self._tracked((x, y, z))
298
299 def check_track_dynamic(self, tp, always_track):
300 x, y, z = 1.5, "a", []
301
302 check = self._tracked if always_track else self._not_tracked
303 check(tp())
304 check(tp([]))
305 check(tp(set()))
306 check(tp([1, x, y]))
307 check(tp(obj for obj in [1, x, y]))
308 check(tp(set([1, x, y])))
309 check(tp(tuple([obj]) for obj in [1, x, y]))
310 check(tuple(tp([obj]) for obj in [1, x, y]))
311
312 self._tracked(tp([z]))
313 self._tracked(tp([[x, y]]))
314 self._tracked(tp([{x: y}]))
315 self._tracked(tp(obj for obj in [x, y, z]))
316 self._tracked(tp(tuple([obj]) for obj in [x, y, z]))
317 self._tracked(tuple(tp([obj]) for obj in [x, y, z]))
318
Benjamin Peterson02d78062010-06-27 22:44:51 +0000319 @support.cpython_only
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +0000320 def test_track_dynamic(self):
321 # Test GC-optimization of dynamically constructed tuples.
322 self.check_track_dynamic(tuple, False)
323
Benjamin Peterson02d78062010-06-27 22:44:51 +0000324 @support.cpython_only
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +0000325 def test_track_subtypes(self):
326 # Tuple subtypes must always be tracked
327 class MyTuple(tuple):
328 pass
329 self.check_track_dynamic(MyTuple, True)
330
Benjamin Peterson02d78062010-06-27 22:44:51 +0000331 @support.cpython_only
Antoine Pitrou6b7dfc92009-12-12 19:18:27 +0000332 def test_bug7466(self):
333 # Trying to untrack an unfinished tuple could crash Python
334 self._not_tracked(tuple(gc.collect() for i in range(101)))
Antoine Pitrou3a652b12009-03-23 18:52:06 +0000335
Antoine Pitroueeb7eea2011-10-06 18:57:27 +0200336 def test_repr_large(self):
337 # Check the repr of large list objects
338 def check(n):
339 l = (0,) * n
340 s = repr(l)
341 self.assertEqual(s,
342 '(' + ', '.join(['0'] * n) + ')')
343 check(10) # check our checking code
344 check(1000000)
345
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +0000346 def test_iterator_pickle(self):
347 # Userlist iterators don't support pickling yet since
348 # they are based on generators.
349 data = self.type2test([4, 5, 6, 7])
Serhiy Storchakabad12572014-12-15 14:03:42 +0200350 for proto in range(pickle.HIGHEST_PROTOCOL + 1):
351 itorg = iter(data)
352 d = pickle.dumps(itorg, proto)
353 it = pickle.loads(d)
354 self.assertEqual(type(itorg), type(it))
355 self.assertEqual(self.type2test(it), self.type2test(data))
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +0000356
Serhiy Storchakabad12572014-12-15 14:03:42 +0200357 it = pickle.loads(d)
358 next(it)
359 d = pickle.dumps(it, proto)
360 self.assertEqual(self.type2test(it), self.type2test(data)[1:])
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +0000361
362 def test_reversed_pickle(self):
363 data = self.type2test([4, 5, 6, 7])
Serhiy Storchakabad12572014-12-15 14:03:42 +0200364 for proto in range(pickle.HIGHEST_PROTOCOL + 1):
365 itorg = reversed(data)
366 d = pickle.dumps(itorg, proto)
367 it = pickle.loads(d)
368 self.assertEqual(type(itorg), type(it))
369 self.assertEqual(self.type2test(it), self.type2test(reversed(data)))
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +0000370
Serhiy Storchakabad12572014-12-15 14:03:42 +0200371 it = pickle.loads(d)
372 next(it)
373 d = pickle.dumps(it, proto)
374 self.assertEqual(self.type2test(it), self.type2test(reversed(data))[1:])
Kristján Valur Jónsson31668b82012-04-03 10:49:41 +0000375
Martin v. Löwis4c1730d2012-08-01 10:32:11 +0200376 def test_no_comdat_folding(self):
377 # Issue 8847: In the PGO build, the MSVC linker's COMDAT folding
378 # optimization causes failures in code that relies on distinct
379 # function addresses.
380 class T(tuple): pass
381 with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
382 [3,] + T((1,2))
383
Raymond Hettingere5bb5512014-03-30 10:12:09 -0700384 def test_lexicographic_ordering(self):
385 # Issue 21100
386 a = self.type2test([1, 2])
387 b = self.type2test([1, 2, 0])
388 c = self.type2test([1, 3])
389 self.assertLess(a, b)
390 self.assertLess(b, c)
391
Tim Peters7ab3d152019-02-08 15:09:26 -0600392# Notes on testing hash codes. The primary thing is that Python doesn't
393# care about "random" hash codes. To the contrary, we like them to be
394# very regular when possible, so that the low-order bits are as evenly
395# distributed as possible. For integers this is easy: hash(i) == i for
396# all not-huge i except i==-1.
397#
398# For tuples of mixed type there's really no hope of that, so we want
399# "randomish" here instead. But getting close to pseudo-random in all
400# bit positions is more expensive than we've been willing to pay for.
401#
402# We can tolerate large deviations from random - what we don't want is
403# catastrophic pileups on a relative handful of hash codes. The dict
404# and set lookup routines remain effective provided that full-width hash
405# codes for not-equal objects are distinct.
406#
407# So we compute various statistics here based on what a "truly random"
408# hash would do, but don't automate "pass or fail" based on those
409# results. Instead those are viewed as inputs to human judgment, and the
410# automated tests merely ensure we get the _same_ results across
411# platforms. In fact, we normally don't bother to run them at all -
412# set RUN_ALL_HASH_TESTS to force it.
413#
414# When global JUST_SHOW_HASH_RESULTS is True, the tuple hash statistics
415# are just displayed to stdout. A typical output line looks like:
416#
417# old tuple test; 32-bit upper hash codes; \
418# pileup 49 mean 7.4 coll 52 z +16.4
419#
420# "old tuple test" is just a string name for the test being run.
421#
422# "32-bit upper hash codes" means this was run under a 64-bit build and
423# we've shifted away the lower 32 bits of the hash codes.
424#
425# "pileup" is 0 if there were no collisions across those hash codes.
426# It's 1 less than the maximum number of times any single hash code was
427# seen. So in this case, there was (at least) one hash code that was
428# seen 50 times: that hash code "piled up" 49 more times than ideal.
429#
430# "mean" is the number of collisions a perfectly random hash function
431# would have yielded, on average.
432#
433# "coll" is the number of collisions actually seen.
434#
435# "z" is "coll - mean" divided by the standard deviation of the number
436# of collisions a perfectly random hash function would suffer. A
437# positive value is "worse than random", and negative value "better than
438# random". Anything of magnitude greater than 3 would be highly suspect
439# for a hash function that claimed to be random. It's essentially
440# impossible that a truly random function would deliver a result 16.4
441# sdevs "worse than random".
442#
443# But we don't care here! That's why the test isn't coded to fail.
444# Knowing something about how the high-order hash code bits behave
445# provides insight, but is irrelevant to how the dict and set lookup
446# code performs. The low-order bits are much more important to that,
447# and on the same test those did "just like random":
448#
449# old tuple test; 32-bit lower hash codes; \
450# pileup 1 mean 7.4 coll 7 z -0.2
451#
452# So there are always tradeoffs to consider. For another:
453#
454# 0..99 << 60 by 3; 32-bit hash codes; \
455# pileup 0 mean 116.4 coll 0 z -10.8
456#
457# That was run under a 32-bit build, and is spectacularly "better than
458# random". On a 64-bit build the wider hash codes are fine too:
459#
460# 0..99 << 60 by 3; 64-bit hash codes; \
461# pileup 0 mean 0.0 coll 0 z -0.0
462#
463# but their lower 32 bits are poor:
464#
465# 0..99 << 60 by 3; 32-bit lower hash codes; \
466# pileup 1 mean 116.4 coll 324 z +19.2
467#
468# In a statistical sense that's waaaaay too many collisions, but (a) 324
469# collisions out of a million hash codes isn't anywhere near being a
470# real problem; and, (b) the worst pileup on a single hash code is a measly
471# 1 extra. It's a relatively poor case for the tuple hash, but still
472# fine for practical use.
473#
474# This isn't, which is what Python 3.7.1 produced for the hashes of
475# itertools.product([0, 0.5], repeat=18). Even with a fat 64-bit
476# hashcode, the highest pileup was over 16,000 - making a dict/set
477# lookup on one of the colliding values thousands of times slower (on
478# average) than we expect.
479#
480# [0, 0.5] by 18; 64-bit hash codes; \
481# pileup 16,383 mean 0.0 coll 262,128 z +6073641856.9
482# [0, 0.5] by 18; 32-bit lower hash codes; \
483# pileup 262,143 mean 8.0 coll 262,143 z +92683.6
484
Zachary Ware38c707e2015-04-13 15:00:43 -0500485if __name__ == "__main__":
486 unittest.main()