loads more progress in 19

Author: hjwp

chapter_19_mocking.asciidoc

@@ -1161,10 +1161,11 @@ That gets us down to one failure:
 
 [subs="specialcharacters,macros"]
 ----
-ERROR: test_returns_new_user_with_correct_email_if_token_exists
-(accounts.tests.test_authentication.AuthenticateTest)
+ERROR: test_returns_new_user_with_correct_email_if_token_exists (accounts.tests
+.test_authentication.AuthenticateTest.test_returns_new_user_with_correct_email_
+if_token_exists)
 [...]
-accounts.models.DoesNotExist: User matching query does not exist.
+accounts.models.User.DoesNotExist: User matching query does not exist.
 
 FAILED (errors=1)
 ----
@@ -1177,7 +1178,7 @@ And we can handle the final case like this:
 ====
 [source,python]
 ----
-    def authenticate(self, uid):
+    def authenticate(self, request, uid):
         try:
             token = Token.objects.get(uid=uid)
             return User.objects.get(email=token.email)
@@ -1191,15 +1192,14 @@ And we can handle the final case like this:
 That's turned out neater than our spike!
 
 
-The get_user Method
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+==== The get_user Method
 
 
-((("get_user method")))We've
-handled the `authenticate` function which Django will use to log new
-users in.  The second part of the protocol we have to implement is the
-`get_user` method, whose job is to retrieve a user based on their unique
-identifier (the email address), or to return `None` if it can't find one
+((("get_user method")))
+We've handled the `authenticate` function which Django will use to log new users in.q
+The second part of the protocol we have to implement is the `get_user` method,
+whose job is to retrieve a user based on their unique identifier (the email address),
+or to return `None` if it can't find one
 (have another look at <<spike-reminder,the spiked code>> if you need a
 reminder).
 
@@ -1213,21 +1213,16 @@ Here are a couple of tests for those two requirements:
 [source,python]
 ----
 class GetUserTest(TestCase):
-
     def test_gets_user_by_email(self):
-        User.objects.create(email='[email protected]')
-        desired_user = User.objects.create(email='[email protected]')
-        found_user = PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend().get_user(
-            '[email protected]'
-        )
+        User.objects.create(email="[email protected]")
+        desired_user = User.objects.create(email="[email protected]")
+        found_user = PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend().get_user("[email protected]")
         self.assertEqual(found_user, desired_user)
 
-
     def test_returns_None_if_no_user_with_that_email(self):
         self.assertIsNone(
-            PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend().get_user('[email protected]')
+            PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend().get_user("[email protected]")
         )
-
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1247,8 +1242,7 @@ Let's create a placeholder one then:
 [source,python]
 ----
 class PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend:
-
-    def authenticate(self, uid):
+    def authenticate(self, request, uid):
         [...]
 
     def get_user(self, email):
@@ -1259,9 +1253,10 @@ class PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend:
 Now we get:
 
 
+[subs="macros"]
 ----
     self.assertEqual(found_user, desired_user)
-AssertionError: None != <User: User object>
+AssertionError: None != pass:specialcharacters[<User: User object ([email protected])>]
 ----
 
 And (step by step, just to see if our test fails the way we think it will):
@@ -1278,9 +1273,11 @@ And (step by step, just to see if our test fails the way we think it will):
 
 That gets us past the first assertion, and onto:
 
+[subs="macros"]
 ----
     self.assertEqual(found_user, desired_user)
-AssertionError: <User: User object> != <User: User object>
+AssertionError: pass:specialcharacters[<User: User object ([email protected])>] != pass:specialcharacters[<User: User object
+([email protected])>]
 ----
 
 And so we call `get` with the email as an argument:
@@ -1300,9 +1297,10 @@ And so we call `get` with the email as an argument:
 Now our test for the `None` case fails:
 
 ----
-ERROR: test_returns_None_if_no_user_with_that_email
+ERROR: test_returns_None_if_no_user_with_that_email (accounts.tests.test_authen
+tication.GetUserTest.test_returns_None_if_no_user_with_that_email)
 [...]
-accounts.models.DoesNotExist: User matching query does not exist.
+accounts.models.User.DoesNotExist: User matching query does not exist.
 ----
 
 Which prompts us to finish the method like this:
@@ -1321,9 +1319,9 @@ Which prompts us to finish the method like this:
 ----
 ====
 
-<1> You could just use `pass` here, and the function would return `None`
-    by default.  However, because we specifically need the function to return
-    `None`, the "explicit is better than implicit" rule applies here.
+<1> You could just use `pass` here, and the function would return `None` by default.
+    However, because we specifically need the function to return `None`,
+    the "explicit is better than implicit" rule applies here.
 
 That gets us to passing tests:
 
@@ -1336,8 +1334,7 @@ And we have a working authentication backend!
 
 
 
-Using Our Auth Backend in the Login View
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+==== Using Our Auth Backend in the Login View
 
 The final step is to use the backend in our login view.  First we add it
 to 'settings.py':
@@ -1348,9 +1345,9 @@ to 'settings.py':
 ====
 [source,python]
 ----
-AUTH_USER_MODEL = 'accounts.User'
+AUTH_USER_MODEL = "accounts.User"
 AUTHENTICATION_BACKENDS = [
-    'accounts.authentication.PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend',
+    "accounts.authentication.PasswordlessAuthenticationBackend",
 ]
 
 [...]
@@ -1367,12 +1364,12 @@ back at the spike again:
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    print('login view', file=sys.stderr)
-    uid = request.GET.get('uid')
+    print("login view", file=sys.stderr)
+    uid = request.GET.get("uid")
     user = auth.authenticate(uid=uid)
     if user is not None:
         auth.login(request, user)
-    return redirect('/')
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1510,13 +1507,14 @@ What happens when we run the test?   The first error is this:
 $ pass:quotes[*python src/manage.py test accounts*]
 [...]
 AttributeError: <module 'accounts.views' from
-'...goat-book/accounts/views.py'> does not have the attribute 'auth'
+'...goat-book/src/accounts/views.py'> does not have the attribute 'auth'
 ----
 
-TIP: `module foo does not have the attribute bar` is a common first failure
-    in a test that uses mocks.  It's telling you that you're trying to mock
-    out something that doesn't yet exist (or isn't yet imported) in the target
-    module.
+TIP: `module foo does not have the attribute bar`
+    is a common first failure in a test that uses mocks.
+    It's telling you that you're trying to mock out something
+    that doesn't yet exist (or isn't yet imported)
+    in the target module.
 
 Once we import `django.contrib.auth`, the error changes:
 
@@ -1549,8 +1547,8 @@ function at all.  Let's fix that, but get it deliberately wrong, just to see:
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    auth.authenticate('bang!')
-    return redirect('/')
+    auth.authenticate("bang!")
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1575,8 +1573,8 @@ Let's give `authenticate` the arguments it expects then:
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get('token'))
-    return redirect('/')
+    auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get("token"))
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1648,12 +1646,11 @@ In any case, what do we get from running the test?
 ----
 $ pass:quotes[*python src/manage.py test accounts*]
 [...]
-    call(response.wsgi_request, mock_auth.authenticate.return_value)
 AssertionError: None != call(<WSGIRequest: GET '/accounts/login?t[...]
 ----
 
-Sure enough, it's telling us that we're not calling `auth.login` at all
-yet.  Let's try doing that.  Deliberately wrong as usual first!
+Sure enough, it's telling us that we're not calling `auth.login` at all yet.
+Let's try doing that.  Deliberately wrong as usual first!
 
 
 [role="sourcecode"]
@@ -1662,9 +1659,9 @@ yet.  Let's try doing that.  Deliberately wrong as usual first!
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get('token'))
-    auth.login('ack!')
-    return redirect('/')
+    auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get("token"))
+    auth.login("ack!")
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1687,9 +1684,9 @@ Let's fix that:
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    user = auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get('token'))
+    user = auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get("token"))
     auth.login(request, user)
-    return redirect('/')
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
 
@@ -1698,28 +1695,33 @@ Now we get this unexpected complaint:
 
 [subs="specialcharacters,macros"]
 ----
-ERROR: test_redirects_to_home_page (accounts.tests.test_views.LoginViewTest)
+ERROR: test_redirects_to_home_page
+(accounts.tests.test_views.LoginViewTest.test_redirects_to_home_page)
 [...]
 AttributeError: 'AnonymousUser' object has no attribute '_meta'
 ----
 
-It's because we're still calling `auth.login` indiscriminately on any kind
-of user, and that's causing problems back in our original test for the
-redirect, which _isn't_ currently mocking out `auth.login`.  We need to add an
-`if` (and therefore another test), and while we're at it we'll learn about
-patching at the class level.
+It's because we're still calling `auth.login` indiscriminately on any kind of user,
+and that's causing problems back in our original test for the redirect,
+which _isn't_ currently mocking out `auth.login`.
+We need to add an `if` (and therefore another test),
+and while we're at it we'll learn about patching at the class level.
 
 
-Patching at the Class Level
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+==== Patching at the Class Level
 
-((("@patch")))((("mocks", "mock_auth variable")))((("patch decorator")))((("decorators", "patch decorator")))We
-want to add another test, with another `@patch('accounts.views.auth')`,
-and that's starting to get repetitive.  We use the "three strikes" rule,
-and we can move the patch decorator to the class level.  This will have
-the effect of mocking out `accounts.views.auth` in every single test
-method in that class.  That also means our original redirect test will
-now also have the `mock_auth` variable injected:
+((("@patch")))
+((("mocks", "mock_auth variable")))
+((("patch decorator")))
+((("decorators", "patch decorator")))
+We want to add another test, with another `@patch('accounts.views.auth')`,
+and that's starting to get repetitive.
+We use the "three strikes" rule,
+and we can move the patch decorator to the class level.
+This will have the effect of mocking out `accounts.views.auth`
+in every single test method in that class.
+That also means our original redirect test will now also
+have the `mock_auth` variable injected:
 
 //TODO: suggestion from TR discuss whether class-level mocks can be
 // overridden in individual tests.
@@ -1779,27 +1781,34 @@ And we get it passing like this:
 [source,python]
 ----
 def login(request):
-    user = auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get('token'))
+    user = auth.authenticate(uid=request.GET.get("token"))
     if user:
         auth.login(request, user)
-    return redirect('/')
+    return redirect("/")
 ----
 ====
-//45
 
 
 // TODO: add a failure message?  will help ppl with debugging login failures
 
+The unit tests pass...
+
+----
+OK
+----
 
-So are we there yet?((("", startref="Mreduce19")))((("", startref="dupel19")))
+
+So are we there yet?
+((("", startref="Mreduce19")))((("", startref="dupel19")))
 
 
 [role="pagebreak-before less_space"]
 .Avoid Mock's Magic assert_called... Methods?
 *******************************************************************************
 If you've used `unittest.mock` before, you may have come across its special
 `assert_called...`
-http://bit.ly/2F9AEMY[methods], and you may be wondering why I didn't use them. For example, instead of doing:
+http://bit.ly/2F9AEMY[methods], and you may be wondering why I didn't use them.
+For example, instead of doing:
 
 [role="skipme"]
 [source,python]
@@ -1818,30 +1827,30 @@ a_mock.assert_called_with(foo, bar)
 And the _mock_ library will raise an `AssertionError` for you if there is a
 mismatch.
 
-Why not use that?  For me, the problem with these magic methods is that it's too
-easy to make a silly typo and end up with a test that always passes:
+Why not use that?  For me, the problem with these magic methods is that
+it's too easy to make a silly typo and end up with a test that always passes:
 
 [role="skipme"]
 [source,python]
 ----
 a_mock.asssert_called_with(foo, bar)  # will always pass
 ----
 
-Unless you get the magic method name exactly right, then you will
-just get a "normal" mock method, which just silently return another
-mock, and you may not realise that you've written a test that tests
-nothing at all.
+Unless you get the magic method name exactly right,
+then you will just get a "normal" mock method,
+which just silently return another mock,
+and you may not realise that you've written a test that tests nothing at all.
 
 That's why I prefer to always have an explicit `unittest` method in there.
 
 *******************************************************************************
 
 
-The Moment of Truth:  Will the FT Pass?
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+=== The Moment of Truth:  Will the FT Pass?
 
-((("mocks", "functional test for")))((("functional tests (FTs)", "for mocks", secondary-sortas="mocks")))I
-think we're just about ready to try our functional test!
+((("mocks", "functional test for")))
+((("functional tests (FTs)", "for mocks", secondary-sortas="mocks")))
+I think we're just about ready to try our functional test!
 
 Let's just make sure our base template shows a different nav bar for logged-in
 and non–logged-in users (which our FT relies on):
@@ -1880,6 +1889,12 @@ and non–logged-in users (which our FT relies on):
 ----
 ====
 
+
+****
+TODO resume updates to chapter from here
+****
+
+
 And see if that...
 
 [subs="specialcharacters,macros"]