Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> added the comment:
I agree that this is confusing and that what we need is an assertion for the top-level mock having specific calls in a specific order, and ignores any intervening extra calls to mocked functions. In other words, a version of assert_has_calls() which looks at call_args_list instead of mock_calls. I just finished up a session of head-banging with some tests that were failing (Python 3.7), and eventually ended up with the self.assertEqual(my_mock.call_args_list, [call(...), call(...)]) idiom as noted in msg397172 (but without first banging a few new dents into the top of my desk). This exact same experience is related in a recent stackoverflow thread (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69360318/python-unittest-mock-assert-has-calls-returning-calls-to-other-mocks) so this seems to be a common source of confusion. I am neutral on whether this is implemented as a new flag to assert_has_calls() or as a new assertion method. As an aside, what I was trying to do was test if my code constructed its several instances of a class in the correct way. At one point I hit upon the idea of: MyMockedClass().__init__.assert_has_calls(....) which expressed my desired logic exactly and simply, but couldn't get that to work. It's unclear if I just never found the proper incantation, or if that's fundamentally unworkable. ---------- nosy: +roysmith _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue43371> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
