Develop Reference

How to test a function with functional test?

I want to perform a functional test, but the purpose of this test is to check the result of another function - need_to_test, it should not be a module test, I want to make sure that when starting test_func, another function, namely need_to_test, returns the result I need.
class Need_test_func:
def need_to_test(self):
return 'Red'
def start_another_funk(self):
return self.need_to_test() + ' Green'
def test_func(self):
self.start_another_funk()
return
def test_check():
need_test_func = Need_test_func()
color = 'Red'
assert next(need_test_func().test_func()) == 'Red Green'
my task is to write a functional test i.e. start working with the Need_test_func class from the test_func function and make sure that it works properly but I can't do a unit test and just check if need_to_test returns the right color I need to start with test_func and make sure that during the operation of this function, need_to_test is launched and returns the value I need
How i can do this?

I want to make sure that when starting test_func, another function, namely need_to_test, returns the result I need.
It sounds like you need a mock function that returns a specific value for the test. Then you can patch that function. In this particular situation, you can just assign the function on the object to whatever you want. For example:
def test_check():
need_test_func = Need_test_func()
def mock_func(self):
return 'Blue'
need_test_func.need_to_test = mock_func
result = need_test_func.test_func()
Then you can assert the result of test_func(). In the current version of your question, test_func() isn't affected by need_to_test(), so I don't know what this assert would be. I assume this is a simplified version of a more complex project you are working on. I'll leave the assert as an exercise for the reader.

How do I get the alias of a function call?

The problem I'm having is I don't know how to get the alias of a function call.
what the code works on is for tracking the text:
"struct(...)"
in the code:
x = struct(...)
when calling:
x()
How the IDE works is 'x = struct(...)' only defines an area in a call-tree which creates an indent in the tree, it doesn't actually do anything in the file data.
When you call 'x()' is when the file data is highlighted with the color of 'color = hash("struct(...)")'.
So I need to get the alias 'x' so I can track the call in the code...
I can't exactly help anyone reproduce this as the code for doing so is rather large...
but I just need ideas as I can't seem to find any decent examples on Google.
I'm looking for cases such as:
the obvious:
x = struct(...)
the not so obvious:
p,x,t = 0, struct(...), True
the highly irrelevant:
p,x,t = (
0,
struct(...),
True )
all resulting in a call to x()
I'm using tokenize to get the call-name of struct(), and I have the entire code stored in 'self.codeeditor.data'...
How do I use "struct" to get "x"??
EDIT:
I could mention that x would be in instance of a dynamically created _SUB_STRUCT class returned by struct().

I don't think tokenize will really work here; you'd be better off working on the level of syntax trees using ast and looking for Assign nodes.
For example:
>>> [n.targets[0].id for n in ast.walk(ast.parse("x = struct()"))
if isinstance(n, ast.Assign)
and isinstance(n.value, ast.Call)
and n.value.func.id == 'struct']
['x']

You should be able to use a dict to get the functionality you desire:
# Relates a label to a function
function_maps = {'a':str, 'b':int, 'c':print}
# Will print 'Hello World!'
function_maps['c']('Hello World!')
# Lets look for the `int` function
for key, value in function_maps.items():
if value == int:
print('The alias for `int` is: {}'.format(key))
Without seeing more of your code, this is the way I would suggest doing it.

code runs else statement repeatedly

every time the below code runs, it goes straight through to the first else statement, then runs the next else statement four times. what is going on and how do I fix it so it calls the movement() module?
class square(object):
def __init__(self,updown,leftright,residence,name):
self.updown = updown
self.leftright = leftright
self.residence = bool
self.name = name
a1 = square(1,1,True,"a1")
a2 = square(2,1,False,"a2")
b1 = square(1,2,False,"b1")
b2 = square(2,2,False,"b2")
square_dict = {a1:"a1",a2:"a2",b1:"b1",b2:"b2"}
movement_select()
def movement_select():
response = raw_input("where would you like to move?")
if response in square_dict:
moveTo = square_dict[response]
else:
print "this runs once"
for a in square_dict:
if a.residence == True:
moveFrom = a
movement(moveFrom,moveTo)
else:
print "this runs four times"
movement_select()

Look at how you're defining residence:
self.residence = bool
So, for any square a, a.residence will be the type bool, never the boolean value True (or anything else). So this test will always fail:
if a.residence == True:
To fix it, change that first line to:
self.residence = residence
While we're at it, you rarely need == True, so you can also change the second line to:
if a.residence:
But that isn't a necessary fix, just a way of simplifying your code a bit.
Meanwhile, your squares_dict is a bit odd. I'm not sure whether it's incorrect or not, but let's take a look:
It maps from square objects to their names. That could be a useful thing to do. It means you can iterate over the dict and get all the squares—as you correctly do in your code. And if you later had a square and wanted to get its name, you could use square_dict for that. Then again, you could probably get the same benefit with just a square_list, and using the name already available as an attribute of the square objects (unless you need the same square to have different names in different contexts).
And meanwhile, a mapping in this direction can't be used for looking up squares_dict[response], because response is a name, not a square. So, you definitely need a mapping in the opposite direction, either in addition to or instead of this one.
If you scrap the square-to-name mapping and only keep the name-to-square mapping, you can still iterate over the squares; you'd just have to do for square in squares_dict.values(): instead of just for square in squares_dict:.

First problem: your dictionary appears to be backwards: you want to look up the square objects from their locations, rather than the other way around. This is why your first conditional is never true. You also might as well strip() the response to ensure that you don't have any hidden whitespace in there.
square_dict = {"a1":a1, "a2":a2, "b1":b1, "b2":b2}
# Later...
response = raw_input("where would you like to move?").strip()
# Later still...
for a in square_dict.values(): # Because we switched the dictionary around!
If you don't want to silently strip off the whitespace, I'd suggest that you at least echo their input back to them (print('"{}"'.format(response))) in the case that it's not found in your dictionary, so they (you) can be sure that at least the input was correct.
The second problem is because of how you define residence. You set the variable equal to bool, which is not what you want at all. Line five ought to read:
self.residence = residence
Finally, some other thoughts on your code! You check whether a value is True by checking if a.residence == True:. The preferred form of this comparison is the simpler version:
if a.residence:
Your methods could also be named more descriptively. Generally speaking, it's always nice to begin a function or method name with a verb, to improve readability. This is of course a question of style, but for instance, the two functions we see, movement_select and movement aren't extremely clear as to their function. It would be much easier to read if they used a standardized form, e.g. choose_move and perform_move.

self.residence = bool
should be
self.residence = residence

You don´t set residence right, this is wrong:
class square(object):
def __init__(self,updown,leftright,residence,name):
self.updown = updown
self.leftright = leftright
self.residence = bool
self.name = name
it has to be
class square(object):
def __init__(self,updown,leftright,residence,name):
self.updown = updown
self.leftright = leftright
self.residence = residence # not bool!!
self.name = name

Your response contains \n symbol, just strip() it
You should also swap places between keys and values in your dictionary

Switch in Python [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Replacements for switch statement in Python?
(44 answers)
Closed 27 days ago.
I have tried making a switch like statement in python, instead of having a lot of if statements.
The code looks like this:
def findStuff(cds):
L=[]
c=0
for i in range(0, len(cds), 3):
a=differencesTo(cds[i:i+3])
result = {
a[2][0]==1: c=i+1,
a[2][1]==1: c=i+2,
a[2][2]==1: c=i+3,
a[1]==1: L.append((cds[i:i+3], a[0], c))
}
return L
My problem is, that this does not work. (Works with if statements, but this would in my opinion be more pretty).
I have found some examples of switches in Python, and they follow this structure. Can anyone help me?

(a) I fail to see what is wrong with if...elif...else
(b) I assume that python does not have a switch statement for the same reason that Smalltalk doesn't: it's almost completely redundant, and in the case where you want to switch on types, you can add an appropriate method to your classes; and likewise switching on values should be largely redundant.
Note: I am informed in the comments that whatever Guido's reason for not creating a switch in the first place, PEPs to have it added were rejected on the basis that support for adding such a statement is extremely limited. See: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3103/
(c) If you really need switching behaviour, use a hashtable (dict) to store callables. The structure is:
switch_dict = {
Foo: self.doFoo,
Bar: self.doBar,
}
func = switch_dict[switch_var]
result = func() # or if they take args, pass args

There's nothing wrong with a long if:
if switch == 'case0':
do_case0()
elif switch == 'case1':
do_case1()
elif switch == 'case2':
do_case2()
...
If that's too long winded, or if you have a lot of cases, put them in a dictionary:
switch = {'case0': do_case0, 'case1': do_case1, 'case2': do_case2, ...}
switch[case_variable]()
// Alternative:
(switch[case_variable]).__call__()
If your conditions are a bit more complex, you need to think a little about your data structures. e.g.:
switch = {
(0,21): 'never have a pension',
(21,50): 'might have a pension',
(50,65): 'definitely have a pension',
(65, 200): 'already collecting pension'
}
for key, value in switch.items():
if key[0] <= case_var < key[1]:
print(value)

Other ans are suitable for older version of python. For python v3.10+ you can use match/case which is more powerful than general switch/case construct.
def something(val):
match val:
case "A":
return "A"
case "B":
return "B"
case "C":
return "C"
case _:
return "Default"
something("A")

Assignment in Python is a statement, and cannot be a part of expression. Also, using literal in this way evaluates everything at once, which is probably not what you want. Just use ifs, you won't gain any readability by using this.

I don't know which article you've found to do something like this, but this is really messy: the whole result diction will be always evaluated, and instead of doing only part of the work (as a switch / if do), you'll do the whole work everytime. (even if you use only a part of the result).
Really, a fast switch statement in Python is using "if":
if case == 1:
pass
elif case == 2:
pass
elif case == 3:
pass
else:
# default case
pass

With "get" method, you can have the same effect as "switch..case" in C.
Marcin example :
switch_dict = {
Foo: self.doFoo,
Bar: self.doBar,
}
func = switch_dict.get(switch_var, self.dodefault)
result = func() # or if they take args, pass args

You can do something like what you want, but you shouldn't. That said, here's how; you can see how it does not improve things.
The biggest problem with the way you have it is that Python will evaluate your tests and results once, at the time you declare the dictionary. What you'd have to do instead is make all conditions and the resulting statements functions; this way, evaluation is deferred until you call them. Fortunately there is a way to do this inline for simple functions using the lambda keyword. Secondly, the assignment statement can't be used as a value in Python, so our action functions (which are executed if the corresponding condition function returns a truthy value) have to return a value that will be used to increment c; they can't assign to c themselves.
Also, the items in a dictionary aren't ordered, so your tests won't necessarily be performed in the order you define them, meaning you probably should use something other than a dictionary that preserves order, such as a tuple or a list. I am assuming you want only ever one case to execute.
So, here we go:
def findStuff(cds):
cases = [ (lambda: a[2][0] == 1, lambda: i + 1),
(lambda: a[2][1] == 1, lambda: i + 2),
(lambda: a[2][2] == 1, lambda: i + 3),
(lambda: a[1] == 1, lambda: L.append(cds[i:i+3], a[0], c) or 0)
]
L=[]
c=0
for i in range(0, len(cds), 3):
a=differencesTo(cds[i:i+3])
for condition, action in cases:
if condition():
c += action()
break
return L
Is this more readable than a sequence of if/elif statements? Nooooooooooooo. In particular, the fourth case is far less comprehensible than it should be because we are having to rely on a function that returns the increment for c to modify a completely different variable, and then we have to figure out how to get it to return a 0 so that c won't actually be modified. Uuuuuugly.
Don't do this. In fact this code probably won't even run as-is, as I deemed it too ugly to test.

While there is nothing wrong with if..else, I find "switch in Python" still an intriguing problem statement. On that, I think Marcin's (deprecated) option (c) and/or Snim2's second variant can be written in a more readable way.
For this we can declare a switch class, and exploit the __init__() to declare the case we want to switch, while __call__() helps to hand over a dict listing the (case, function) pairs:
class switch(object):
def __init__(self, case):
self._case = case
def __call__(self, dict_):
try:
return dict_[self._case]()
except KeyError:
if 'else' in dict_:
return dict_['else']()
raise Exception('Given case wasn\'t found.')
Or, respectively, since a class with only two methods, of which one is __init__(), isn't really a class:
def switch(case):
def cases(dict_):
try:
return dict_[case]()
except KeyError:
if 'else' in dict_:
return dict_['else']()
raise Exception('Given case wasn\'t found.')
return cases
(note: choose something smarter than Exception)
With for example
def case_a():
print('hello world')
def case_b():
print('sth other than hello')
def default():
print('last resort')
you can call
switch('c') ({
'a': case_a,
'b': case_b,
'else': default
})
which, for this particular example would print
last resort
This doesn't behave like a C switch in that there is no break for the different cases, because each case executes only the function declared for the particular case (i.e. break is implicitly always called). Secondly, each case can list exactly only one function that will be executed upon a found case.

Is this a "pythonic" method of executing functions as a python switch statement for tuple values?

I have a situation where I have six possible situations which can relate to four different results. Instead of using an extended if/else statement, I was wondering if it would be more pythonic to use a dictionary to call the functions that I would call inside the if/else as a replacement for a "switch" statement, like one might use in C# or php.
My switch statement depends on two values which I'm using to build a tuple, which I'll in turn use as the key to the dictionary that will function as my "switch". I will be getting the values for the tuple from two other functions (database calls), which is why I have the example one() and zero() functions.
This is the code pattern I'm thinking of using which I stumbled on with playing around in the python shell:
def one():
#Simulated database value
return 1
def zero():
return 0
def run():
#Shows the correct function ran
print "RUN"
return 1
def walk():
print "WALK"
return 1
def main():
switch_dictionary = {}
#These are the values that I will want to use to decide
#which functions to use
switch_dictionary[(0,0)] = run
switch_dictionary[(1,1)] = walk
#These are the tuples that I will build from the database
zero_tuple = (zero(), zero())
one_tuple = (one(), one())
#These actually run the functions. In practice I will simply
#have the one tuple which is dependent on the database information
#to run the function that I defined before
switch_dictionary[zero_tuple]()
switch_dictionary[one_tuple]()
I don't have the actual code written or I would post it here, as I would like to know if this method is considered a python best practice. I'm still a python learner in university, and if this is a method that's a bad habit, then I would like to kick it now before I get out into the real world.
Note, the result of executing the code above is as expected, simply "RUN" and "WALK".
edit
For those of you who are interested, this is how the relevant code turned out. It's being used on a google app engine application. You should find the code is considerably tidier than my rough example pattern. It works much better than my prior convoluted if/else tree.
def GetAssignedAgent(self):
tPaypal = PaypalOrder() #Parent class for this function
tAgents = []
Switch = {}
#These are the different methods for the actions to take
Switch[(0,0)] = tPaypal.AssignNoAgent
Switch[(0,1)] = tPaypal.UseBackupAgents
Switch[(0,2)] = tPaypal.UseBackupAgents
Switch[(1,0)] = tPaypal.UseFullAgents
Switch[(1,1)] = tPaypal.UseFullAndBackupAgents
Switch[(1,2)] = tPaypal.UseFullAndBackupAgents
Switch[(2,0)] = tPaypal.UseFullAgents
Switch[(2,1)] = tPaypal.UseFullAgents
Switch[(2,2)] = tPaypal.UseFullAgents
#I'm only interested in the number up to 2, which is why
#I can consider the Switch dictionary to be all options available.
#The "state" is the current status of the customer agent system
tCurrentState = (tPaypal.GetNumberofAvailableAgents(),
tPaypal.GetNumberofBackupAgents())
tAgents = Switch[tCurrentState]()

Consider this idiom instead:
>>> def run():
... print 'run'
...
>>> def walk():
... print 'walk'
...
>>> def talk():
... print 'talk'
>>> switch={'run':run,'walk':walk,'talk':talk}
>>> switch['run']()
run
I think it is a little more readable than the direction you are heading.
edit
And this works as well:
>>> switch={0:run,1:walk}
>>> switch[0]()
run
>>> switch[max(0,1)]()
walk
You can even use this idiom for a switch / default type structure:
>>> default_value=1
>>> try:
... switch[49]()
... except KeyError:
... switch[default_value]()
Or (the less readable, more terse):
>>> switch[switch.get(49,default_value)]()
walk
edit 2
Same idiom, extended to your comment:
>>> def get_t1():
... return 0
...
>>> def get_t2():
... return 1
...
>>> switch={(get_t1(),get_t2()):run}
>>> switch
{(0, 1): <function run at 0x100492d70>}
Readability matters

It is a reasonably common python practice to dispatch to functions based on a dictionary or sequence lookup.
Given your use of indices for lookup, an list of lists would also work:
switch_list = [[run, None], [None, walk]]
...
switch_list[zero_tuple]()
What is considered most Pythonic is that which maximizes clarity while meeting other operational requirements. In your example, the lookup tuple doesn't appear to have intrinsic meaning, so the operational intent is being lost of a magic constant. Try to make sure the business logic doesn't get lost in your dispatch mechanism. Using meaningful names for the constants would likely help.