[PATCH v3 03/12] dts: add test case decorators
Juraj Linkeš
juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech
Thu Sep 5 10:07:33 CEST 2024
On 26. 8. 2024 18:50, Jeremy Spewock wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:53 AM Juraj Linkeš
> <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech> wrote:
> <snip>
>> class DTSRunner:
>> @@ -232,9 +231,9 @@ def _get_test_suites_with_cases(
>>
>> for test_suite_config in test_suite_configs:
>> test_suite_class = self._get_test_suite_class(test_suite_config.test_suite)
>> - test_cases = []
>> - func_test_cases, perf_test_cases = self._filter_test_cases(
>> - test_suite_class, test_suite_config.test_cases
>> + test_cases: list[type[TestCase]] = []
>
> If TestCase is just a class, why is the `type[]` in the annotation
> required? Are these not specific instances of the TestCase class? I
> figured they would need to be in order for you to run the specific
> test case methods. Maybe this has something to do with the class being
> a Protocol?
>
The *_test decorators return type[TestCase]. The functions (test
methods) are cast to type[TestCase] (which kinda makes them subclasses
of TestCase).
This was a suggestion from Luca and I took it as as. Maybe the functions
could be cast as instances of TestCase, but I didn't try that.
>> + func_test_cases, perf_test_cases = test_suite_class.get_test_cases(
>> + test_suite_config.test_cases
>> )
>> if func:
>> test_cases.extend(func_test_cases)
>> @@ -309,57 +308,6 @@ def is_test_suite(object) -> bool:
>> f"Couldn't find any valid test suites in {test_suite_module.__name__}."
>> )
>>
> <snip>
>> @@ -120,6 +123,68 @@ def _process_links(self) -> None:
>> ):
>> self._port_links.append(PortLink(sut_port=sut_port, tg_port=tg_port))
>>
>> + @classmethod
>> + def get_test_cases(
>> + cls, test_case_sublist: Sequence[str] | None = None
>> + ) -> tuple[set[type["TestCase"]], set[type["TestCase"]]]:
>> + """Filter `test_case_subset` from this class.
>> +
>> + Test cases are regular (or bound) methods decorated with :func:`func_test`
>> + or :func:`perf_test`.
>> +
>> + Args:
>> + test_case_sublist: Test case names to filter from this class.
>> + If empty or :data:`None`, return all test cases.
>> +
>> + Returns:
>> + The filtered test case functions. This method returns functions as opposed to methods,
>> + as methods are bound to instances and this method only has access to the class.
>> +
>> + Raises:
>> + ConfigurationError: If a test case from `test_case_subset` is not found.
>> + """
>> +
> <snip>
>> + for test_case_name, test_case_function in inspect.getmembers(cls, is_test_case):
>> + if test_case_name in test_case_sublist_copy:
>> + # if test_case_sublist_copy is non-empty, remove the found test case
>> + # so that we can look at the remainder at the end
>> + test_case_sublist_copy.remove(test_case_name)
>> + elif test_case_sublist:
>> + # if the original list is not empty (meaning we're filtering test cases),
>> + # we're dealing with a test case we would've
>
> I think this part of the comment about "we're dealing with a test case
> we would've removed in the other branch" confused me a little bit. It
> could just be a me thing, but I think this would have been more clear
> for me if it was something more like "The original list is not empty
> (meaning we're filtering test cases). Since we didn't remove this test
> case in the other branch, it doesn't match the filter and we don't
> want to run it."
>
We should remove any confusion. I'll change it - your wording sound good.
>> + # removed in the other branch; since we didn't, we don't want to run it
>> + continue
>> +
>> + match test_case_function.test_type:
>> + case TestCaseType.PERFORMANCE:
>> + perf_test_cases.add(test_case_function)
>> + case TestCaseType.FUNCTIONAL:
>> + func_test_cases.add(test_case_function)
>> +
>> + if test_case_sublist_copy:
>> + raise ConfigurationError(
>> + f"Test cases {test_case_sublist_copy} not found among functions of {cls.__name__}."
>> + )
>> +
>> + return func_test_cases, perf_test_cases
>> +
> <snip>
>> 2.34.1
>>
More information about the dev
mailing list