Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

gh-109218: Refactor tests for the complex() constructor #119635

Merged

Conversation

serhiy-storchaka
Copy link
Member

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka commented May 27, 2024

  • Share common classes.
  • Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
  • Check the sign of zero components.
  • Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
  • Reorder tests in more consistent way.
  • Test more error messages.
  • Add tests for missed cases.

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
Copy link
Member

@skirpichev skirpichev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, just few nitpicks. No test coverage regressions.

Comment on lines 24 to 44
class MockIndex:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def __index__(self):
return self.value

class MockFloat:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def __float__(self):
return self.value

class ComplexSubclass(complex):
pass

class MockComplex:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def __complex__(self):
return self.value

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note, that similar code could be shared also with test_long.py and test_float.py. That refactoring of the scope here, but maybe in this pr you could put these classes somewhere in the support module? // see #110956

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I proposed this in #84310. But for some reasons this idea was not liked, so now we need to duplicate the code in many test files. cc @rhettinger

Comment on lines +692 to +693
self.assertFloatsAreIdentical(z1.imag, 0.0)
self.assertFloatsAreIdentical(z2.imag, -0.0)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This pattern is quite common. Maybe there should be helper method like:

    def assertComplexesAreIdentical(self, x, y):
        self.assertFloatsAreIdentical(x.real, y.real)
        self.assertFloatsAreIdentical(x.imag, y.imag)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I seen this in your PR, and this looks helpful. There are also similar methods (with different names) in other test files. Perhaps we could move the best implementation in a common file and use it everywhere.

Copy link
Member

@mdickinson mdickinson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Changes LGTM

@@ -21,6 +21,27 @@
(1, 0+0j),
)

class MockIndex:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Naming nitpick: the Mock prefix on these classes doesn't feel appropriate: nothing's being mocked here. I'd probably go with something like ImplementsIndex or HasIndex.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I once added common FakePath class which implements the __path__ method, and it is now used in many tests for the path protocol. I proposed to add similar FakeIndex, FakeFloat, etc, but Raymond rejected this idea. Here I use the Mock prefix which looks more neutral and test specific than Fake. Different tests currently use similar classes with different names. The most common prefix is perhaps My. Prefix Supports cannot be used because it can conflict with typing.SupportIndex, etc. Suffix Like can conflict with os.PathLike.

I see that several tests use the With prefix: WithStr, WithRepr, WithIterAnext, etc. What do you think about WithIndex?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

WithIndex works. I'm also happy for this to be left as-is - it's not a strong objection, just a niggling feeling that the name isn't quite right.

check(complex(real=4.25+1.5j), 4.25, 1.5)
check(complex(imag=1.5), 0.0, 1.5)
check(complex(real=4.25, imag=1.5), 4.25, 1.5)
check(complex(4.25, imag=1.5), 4.25, 1.5)

# check that the sign of a zero in the real or imaginary part
# is preserved when constructing from two floats. (These checks
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could drop the parenthetical here, given that we're now requiring IEEE 754 for CPython.

check(complex(MockIndex(42)), 42.0, 0.0)
check(complex(MockIndex(42), 1.5), 42.0, 1.5)
check(complex(1.5, MockIndex(42)), 1.5, 42.0)
self.assertRaises(OverflowError, complex, MockIndex(2**2000))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting - looks like these tests were already assuming IEEE 754 before.

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka enabled auto-merge (squash) May 29, 2024 18:25
with self.assertWarns(DeprecationWarning):
self.assertEqual(complex(complex1(1j)), 2j)
check(complex(complex1(1j)), 0.0, 2.0)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@serhiy-storchaka, maybe it's time to drop this? Ditto for float's.

Returning non-complex(float) values was deprecated in v3.7.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a different issue.

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka merged commit bf098d4 into python:main May 30, 2024
31 checks passed
@miss-islington-app
Copy link

Thanks @serhiy-storchaka for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.12, 3.13.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 30, 2024
…GH-119635)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
(cherry picked from commit bf098d4)

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>
miss-islington pushed a commit to miss-islington/cpython that referenced this pull request May 30, 2024
…GH-119635)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
(cherry picked from commit bf098d4)

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>
@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented May 30, 2024

GH-119795 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.13 branch.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot removed the needs backport to 3.13 bugs and security fixes label May 30, 2024
@bedevere-app
Copy link

bedevere-app bot commented May 30, 2024

GH-119796 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.12 branch.

@bedevere-app bedevere-app bot removed the needs backport to 3.12 bug and security fixes label May 30, 2024
serhiy-storchaka added a commit that referenced this pull request May 30, 2024
…9635) (GH-119796)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
(cherry picked from commit bf098d4)

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>
noahbkim pushed a commit to hudson-trading/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2024
…GH-119635)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
estyxx pushed a commit to estyxx/cpython that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2024
…GH-119635)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
serhiy-storchaka added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 9, 2024
…9635) (GH-119795)

* Share common classes.
* Use exactly representable floats and exact tests.
* Check the sign of zero components.
* Remove duplicated tests (mostly left after merging int and long).
* Reorder tests in more consistent way.
* Test more error messages.
* Add tests for missed cases.
(cherry picked from commit bf098d4)

Co-authored-by: Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
skip news tests Tests in the Lib/test dir
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants