On 30May2015 12:16, Sydney Shall <s.sh...@virginmedia.com> wrote:
Following advice from you generous people, I have chosen a project >that
interests me, to develop some knowledge of python.
My projest is a simulation of a biological population.
I have a base class and a simulation function, which uses instances of
the class.
This, after many months of work and lots of advice, now seems to work
well. It generates sensible data and when I write a small test program
it gives sensible output.
Now I want to learn to use unittest.
I have written a unittest class which works OK.
But the problem I have is that because I use the random module to
populate my initial arrays, my data is not strictly predictable even
though I am using seed(0). So the tests return many *fails* because
the numbers are not exactly correct, although they are all rather
close, consistent with the sigma value I have chosen for the spread of
my population. I do of course use *almostEqual* and not *Equal*.
First of all, several people have posted suggestions for getting identical
results on every run.
However, there is another approach, which you might consider. (And use in
addition, not inseadt of, the reproducable suggestions).
It is all very well to have a unit test that runs exactly the same with a test
set of data - it lets you have confidence that algorithm changes do not change
the outcome. But on for that data set.
You say that your results are "all rather close, consistent with the sigma
value I have chosen for the spread of my population". I would advocate making
some "contraint" tests that verify this property for _any_ input data set.
Then you can run with random and _changing_ input data sets to verify that your
code produces the expected _kind_ of results with many data sets.
So you would have one test which ran with a fixed data set which confirms
preidctable unchanging results. And you have other tests with run with randomly
chosen data and confirms that outcomes fall within the parameters you expect.
You can apply those checks ("outcome in range") to both sets of tests.
As an exmaple, I have a few classes which maintain data structures which are
sensitive to boundary conditions. The glaring example is a numeric range class
which stores contiguous ranges efficiently (a sequence of (low,high) pairs). It
has a few add/remove operations which are meant to maintain that sequence on
ordered minimal form. cutting and merging adjacent ranges is very easy to get
wrong, very sensitive to off-by-one logic errors.
So my tests for this class include some random tests which do random
unpredictable add/remove operations, and run a consistency check on the object
after each operation. This gives me good odds of exercising some tricky
sequence which I have not considered explicitly myself.
You can see the test suite here:
https://bitbucket.org/cameron_simpson/css/src/tip/lib/python/cs/range_tests.py
It has a bunch of explicit specific tests up the top, and then the random
consistency test down the bottom as "test30random_set_equivalence".
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
MS-Word is Not a document exchange format - Jeff Goldberg
http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
