Increase test coverage for numbers.py

[londinburgh]

BPO	33284
Nosy	@rhettinger, @terryjreedy, @londinburgh
PRs	bpo-33284 Add to a unit test to improve coverage for numbers.py #6480

^{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 2018-04-15.18:14:55.580>
labels = ['3.8', 'type-feature', 'tests']
title = 'Increase test coverage for numbers.py'
updated_at = <Date 2018-04-26.10:12:27.449>
user = 'https://github.com/londinburgh'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2018-04-26.10:12:27.449>
actor = 'Barry Devlin'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Tests']
creation = <Date 2018-04-15.18:14:55.580>
creator = 'Barry Devlin'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 33284
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['315337', '315547', '315784']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['rhettinger', 'terry.reedy', 'Barry Devlin']
pr_nums = ['6480']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'needs patch'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue33284'
versions = ['Python 3.8']

Linked PRs

• gh-77465: Increase test coverage for numbers #111738
• [3.12] gh-77465: Increase test coverage for the numbers module (GH-111738) #114556
• [3.11] gh-77465: Increase test coverage for the numbers module (GH-111738) #114557

[londinburgh]

The __bool__ method in the complex class in numbers is not tested.

[terryjreedy]

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?

[londinburgh]

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, <[email protected]> wrote:

Terry J. Reedy <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue33284\>

---