Hey,

I updated my pull request based in your advice. Could you review it please?

Best,

Barry

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, 03:20 Terry J. Reedy, <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:

>
> Terry J. Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> added the comment:
>
> Barry, thank you for your first submission.
>
> You propose to test numbers.Complex.__bool__
>
>     def __bool__(self):
>         """True if self != 0. Called for bool(self)."""
>         return self != 0
>
> by adding the following to Lib/test/test_abstract_numbers.
>
> +        self.assertFalse(bool(complex(0,0)))
> +        self.assertTrue(bool(complex(1,2)))
>
> I believe that this particular addition should be rejected.  It is a
> concrete test of the builtin complex that partially duplicates the
> following in test_complex.
>
>     def test_boolcontext(self):
>         for i in range(100):
>             self.assertTrue(complex(random() + 1e-6, random() + 1e-6))
>         self.assertTrue(not complex(0.0, 0.0))
>
> Looking the tests of collections.abc in test_collections, I believe a
> proper test should define a subclass of Complex (in Python), with at least
> __init__ and __eq__ methods and test instances of *that*.
>
> If I were to review a patch, I would like to see a more extensive
> addition, one that imports test_collections.ABCTestCase (or copies and
> adapts the same) and uses it to test a much fuller implementation of
> Complex.  As it is, none of the numbers abc class methods are tested.
>
> Raymond, were you involved with the abc tests? Either way, what do you
> think?
>
> ----------
> nosy: +rhettinger, terry.reedy
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue33284>
> _______________________________________
>