New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replacement for unittest.mock.mock_open #69876
Comments
The unittest.mock module defines a mock_open utility to mock the builtin open function. During a recent project I found I needed something more. Specifically, mocking different files at the same time, better mocking for operations (like seek, readlines, etc.) among others. The project can also be found on http://github.com/nivbend/mock-open Thanks |
Thanks for the submission. I haven't looked at this in detail, but the fact that you are changing existing unit tests indicates there is probably a backward compatibility problem with your patch. Also if you are adding features I'd expect there to be doc changes, which would make it easier to understand what you are proposing. |
Regarding the documentation changes, my version simply mocks Regarding the tests, I've tried changing as little as possible to make sure I don't have any backward compatibility issues. However, some changes had to be made:
Sorry about the (very) late response, I've been preoccupied lately. |
Hmm, I haven't looked closely, but some high level thoughts. I'm worried about making mock too complex here. We already say folk should use a VFS for complex file based tests, and there's quite a chunk of code you're adding - perhaps better to just use a VFS? I don't like mock importing mock_open and mock_open importing mock: please keep this in a single mock.py at this point. |
I copied the code in place of the old mock_open in unittest/mock.py. Regarding the VFS issue, I think that it really depends on what you're trying to test. If you only care about "side effects" on the file system, the VFS way it much better and easier. But if you want to test the way files are handled by your code (proper handling of errors during open/read/write seems the obvious thing here, but I can think of other use cases), then I think MockOpen is the better tool. |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: