Develop Reference

AssertError not catched in unittest in python try-except clause

I have a object created in a test case, and want to make test inside of its method.
But the exception is swallow by the try-except clause.
I know I can change raise the exception in run but it is not what I want. Is there a way that any unittest tool can handle this?
It seems that assertTrue method of unittest.TestCase is just a trivial assert clause.
class TestDemo(unittest.TestCase):
def test_a(self):
test_case = self
class NestedProc:
def method1(self):
print("flag show the method is running")
test_case.assertTrue(False)
def run(self):
try:
self.method1()
except:
pass # can raise here to give the exception but not what I want.
NestedProc().run() # no exception raised
# NestedProc().method1() # exception raised
EDIT
For clarity, I paste my realworld test case here. The most tricky thing here is that ParentProcess will always success leading to AssertError not correctly being propagated to test function.
class TestProcess(unittest.TestCase);
#pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_process_stack_multiple(self):
"""
Run multiple and nested processes to make sure the process stack is always correct
"""
expect_true = []
def test_nested(process):
expect_true.append(process == Process.current())
class StackTest(plumpy.Process):
def run(self):
# TODO: unexpected behaviour here
# if assert error happend here not raise
# it will be handled by try except clause in process
# is there better way to handle this?
expect_true.append(self == Process.current())
test_nested(self)
class ParentProcess(plumpy.Process):
def run(self):
expect_true.append(self == Process.current())
proc = StackTest()
# launch the inner process
asyncio.ensure_future(proc.step_until_terminated())
to_run = []
for _ in range(100):
proc = ParentProcess()
to_run.append(proc)
await asyncio.gather(*[p.step_until_terminated() for p in to_run])
for proc in to_run:
self.assertEqual(plumpy.ProcessState.FINISHED, proc.state)
for res in expect_true:
self.assertTrue(res)

Any assert* method and even fail() just raises an exception. The easiest method is probably to manually set a flag and fail() afterwards:
def test_a(self):
success = True
class NestedProc:
def method1(self):
nonlocal success
success = False
raise Exception()
...
NestedProc().run()
if not success:
self.fail()

Object that raises exception when used in any way

I need to create an object that would raise a custom exception, UnusableObjectError, when it is used in any way (creating it should not create an exception though).
a = UnusableClass() # No error
b = UnusableClass() # No error
a == 4 # Raises UnusableObjectError
'x' in a # Raises UnusableObjectError
for i in a: # Raises UnusableObjectError
print(i)
# ..and so on
I came up with the code below which seems to behave as expected.
class UnusableObjectError(Exception):
pass
CLASSES_WITH_MAGIC_METHODS = (str(), object, float(), dict())
# Combines all magic methods I can think of.
MAGIC_METHODS_TO_CHANGE = set()
for i in CLASSES_WITH_MAGIC_METHODS:
MAGIC_METHODS_TO_CHANGE |= set(dir(i))
MAGIC_METHODS_TO_CHANGE.add('__call__')
# __init__ and __new__ must not raise an UnusableObjectError
# otherwise it would raise error even on creation of objects.
MAGIC_METHODS_TO_CHANGE -= {'__class__', '__init__', '__new__'}
def error_func(*args, **kwargs):
"""(nearly) all magic methods will be set to this function."""
raise UnusableObjectError
class UnusableClass(object):
pass
for i in MAGIC_METHODS_TO_CHANGE:
setattr(UnusableClass, i, error_func)
(some improvements made, as suggested by Duncan in comments)
Questions:
Is there an already existing class that behaves as described?
If not, is there any flaw in my UnusableClass() (e.g., situations when using the instances of the class wouldn't raise an error) and if so, how can I fix those flaws?

Turns out metaclasses and dunder (double underscore) methods don't go well together (which is unfortunate, since that would have been a more streamlined way to implement this).
I couldn't find any importable listing of magic method names, so I created one and put it on PyPi (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/magicmethods/0.1.1). With it, the implementation of UnusableClass can be written as a simple class decorator:
import magicmethods
class UnusableObjectError(Exception):
pass
def unusable(cls):
def _unusable(*args, **kwargs):
raise UnusableObjectError()
for name in set(magicmethods.all) - set(magicmethods.lifecycle):
setattr(cls, name, _unusable)
return cls
#unusable
class UnusableClass(object):
pass
magicmethods.lifecycle contains __new__, __init__, and __del__. You might want to adjust this..
This implementation also handles:
a = UnusableClass()
with a:
print 'oops'

You can use __getattribute__ to block all access to attributes, except special __ attributes like __contains__ or __eq__ which are not catched by __getattribute__, and use a whitelist to allow access to some methods:
class UnuseableClass(object):
whitelist = ('alpha', 'echo',)
def __init__(self):
self.alpha = 42
def echo(self, text):
print text
def not_callable(self):
return 113
def __getattribute__(self, name):
if name in type(self).whitelist:
return super(UnuseableClass, self).__getattribute__(name)
else:
raise Exception('Attribute is not useable: %s' % name)
unuseable_object = UnuseableClass()
print(unuseable_object.alpha)
unuseable_object.echo('calling echo')
try:
unuseable_object.not_callable()
except Exception as exc:
print(exc.message)
If you really need to catch even special method calls, you can use How to catch any method called on an object in python?.

Construct object via __init__ and ignore constructor exception

I have a Python class whose __init__ method raises a custom exception called WrongFileSpecified.
However, when I write a unit test, I want to assign the attributes of the instance object from a test fixture. So normally what I would be doing is reading data off a file and then working with the instance object.
But with the test, I cannot use any test files, so I basically need to hard code the data in the instance object in the setUp method of the unit test. Is there any way to get a instance created without __init__ complaining about the exception?
Sample code:
class A(object):
def __init__(self, folderPath):
#check folder path using os.isdir() otherwise raise exception
#...
self.folderPath = folderPath
#Call load record
self._load_records() #uses self.folderPath and raises exceptions as well
#Note i cannot avoid raising these exceptions, its required
class TestA(unittest.TestCase):
.......
obj = None
def setUp(self):
obj = A('fake folder path')
obj.val1 = "testparam1"
obj.param2 = "testparam2"
def test_1(self):
.....

You can create an empty object, bypassing __init__ by using __new__.
obj = obj_type.__new__(obj_type)
Note that obj_type is the appropriate type object. This is a little hacky but it works. You are reponsible for setting the object's members.
Edit: here is an example.
class Foo():
def __init__(self):
self.x = 1
self.y = 2
def say_hello(self):
print('Hello!')
r = Foo.__new__(Foo)
r.say_hello()
print(r.x)
Console output:
Hello!
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\WinPython-64bit-3.3.5.7\python-
3.3.5.amd64\Scripts\projects\luc_utils\dev\test\
unit_test_serialization.py", line 29, in <module>
print(r.x)
AttributeError: 'Foo' object has no attribute 'x'

Here are two options:
Refactor the file loading out to a class method, which is the Pythonic method of providing an alternate constructor (see below); or
Provide an additional parameter to __init__ to suppress the exceptions when necessary (e.g. def __init__(self, folderPath, suppress=False), or validate=True, whichever makes more sense for your usage).
The latter is a bit awkward, in my opinion, but would mean that you don't have to refactor existing code creating A instances. The former would look like:
class A(object):
def __init__(self, ...):
"""Pass whatever is loaded from the file to __init__."""
...
#classmethod
def from_file(cls, folderPath):
"""Load the data from the file, or raise an exception."""
...
and you would replace e.g. a = A(whatever) with a = A.from_file(whatever).

There is a very useful module called mock, you can check it out later, I feel that in this case it will be too much. Instead, you should consider redesigning your class, like this, for example:
class A(object):
def __init__(self, folderPath):
self.folderPath = folderPath
def _load_records(self)
#check folder path using os.isdir() otherwise raise exception
...
#uses self.folderPath and raises exceptions as well
...
#classmethod
def load_records(cls, folderpath):
obj = cls(folderpath)
obj._load_records()
return obj
# Usage
records = A.load_records('/path/to/records')
Then you can do:
class TestA(unittest.TestCase):
.......
obj = None
def setUp(self):
self.obj = A('fake folder path')
self.obj.val1 = "testparam1"
self.obj.param2 = "testparam2"
def test_1(self):
self.assertRaises(self.obj._load_records, HorribleFailureError)
Also i highly recommend to check out pytest, it has wonderful facilities for test fixtures, including fixtures for files and folders.

Python magic method to alter the way raising an object is handled

I was wondering, is there a simple magic method in python that allows customization of the behaviour of an exception-derived object when it is raised? I'm looking for something like __raise__ if that exists. If no such magic methods exist, is there any way I could do something like the following (it's just an example to prove my point):
class SpecialException(Exception):
def __raise__(self):
print('Error!')
raise SpecialException() #this is the part of the code that must stay
Is it possible?

I don't know about such magic method but even if it existed it is just some piece of code that gets executed before actually raising the exception object. Assuming that its a good practice to raise exception objects that are instantiated in-place you can put such code into the __init__ of the exception. Another workaround: instead of raising your exception directly you call an error handling method/function that executes special code and then finally raises an exception.

import time
from functools import wraps
def capture_exception(callback=None, *c_args, **c_kwargs):
"""捕获到异常后执行回调函数"""
assert callable(callback), "callback 必须是可执行对象"
def _out(func):
#wraps(func)
def _inner(*args, **kwargs):
try:
res = func(*args, **kwargs)
return res
except Exception as e:
callback(*c_args, **c_kwargs)
raise e
return _inner
return _out
def send_warning():
print("warning message..............")
class A(object):
#capture_exception(callback=send_warning)
def run(self):
print('run')
raise SystemError("测试异常捕获回调功能")
time.sleep(0.2)
if __name__ == '__main__':
a = A()
a.run()

Proper naming scope for custom error handlers in Python

I'm trying to write an error handling class for my application. Is it necessary to include the full path to the error handler every time? Below is my code.
appname/appname/model/error.py
class UserError(Exception):
""" User errors
"""
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def __str__(self):
return repr(self.value)
My class function:
from error import UserError
def doSomething(
""" Some function
"""
if (value == 2):
pass
else:
raise UserError('Value is not 2')
That is called from my application as follows:
from error import UserError
try:
print names['first']
except appname.model.error.UserError as e:
print e
When raised:
>> appname.model.error.UserError: 'No file specified'
Do I have to refer to this as "appname.model.error.UserError" all the time? Or is there a way to just refer to this error as UserError or even error.UserError? Where to I adjust the scope of this? Seems like not a good idea in case I change the directory structure (or even name) of my application, no?

You could do this:
from appname.model.error import UserError