Increase test coverage for pstats.py

[andreacrotti]

BPO	13670
Nosy	@birkenfeld, @briancurtin, @iritkatriel
Files	test_pstats.diff

^{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:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2011-12-28.14:13:28.618>
labels = ['easy', 'type-feature', 'tests']
title = 'Increase test coverage for pstats.py'
updated_at = <Date 2022-03-22.21:55:07.934>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/andreacrotti'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-03-22.21:55:07.934>
actor = 'iritkatriel'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Tests']
creation = <Date 2011-12-28.14:13:28.618>
creator = 'andrea.crotti'
dependencies = []
files = ['24098']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 13670
keywords = ['easy', 'newcomer friendly']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['150290', '150291', '150292', '221790', '338076', '415821']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['georg.brandl', 'brian.curtin', 'andrea.crotti', 'iritkatriel']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue13670'
versions = ['Python 3.5']

Linked PRs

• gh-57879: Increase test coverage for pstats.py #103928
• gh-57879: Increase test coverage for pstats.py #111447

[andreacrotti]

This patch increases test coverage for pstats.py from 25 to 36%.

It's my first proposed patch so sorry in advance if there are problems. Much more can be done for pstats.py (which is also not much commented) but I want to get some feedback on this first..

[birkenfeld]

I don't understand this comment:
+ #TODO: add more complicated tests, which might almost compile

Also, please don't use docstrings for the test methods because of unittest's "feature" to display them instead of the test method names.

[andreacrotti]

It's really hard to understand true, and if should not go in the patch in general of course.

The sense was that the only test I added is trivial, but I haven't produced something better yet.

And ok I will remove the docstrings, I was actually doing it on purpose thinking about the unittest feature, but if the name is clear enough than is better to leave the docstring out...

Another thing, I didn't want to use tempfile.mktemp to generate a temporary file, but dump_stats doesn't accept anything else, is it in general safe to use it in this case?

[BreamoreBoy]

@Andrea assuming that you get an answer to the question you posed in msg150292, will you follow up on this?

[andreacrotti]

It has been a long time but if it's still useful sure.

I can see some tests have been added in commit 863b1e4
but if these are still relevant I'm happy to go ahead.

[iritkatriel]

The patch needs to be reviewed. If the tests are still relevant and increase coverage, it needs to be converted to a GitHub PR. Otherwise this issue can be closed.

[corona10]

Now we can close the issue.

@tigercosmos
Thanks for the contribution!

@gaogaotiantian
Thanks for the review!