[RDY] Fix requirements file lookup #3800
Conversation
stsewd
changed the title
stsewd
changed the title
|
Added some additional tests for Conda environment :) |
|
Before: Coverage for doc_builder/python_environments.py : 44% |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I liked those tests!
I didn't get what's the change in the logic what fixes the lookup. I left a question for that.
Also, I'd like you to refactor a little bit the test cases before merging. I left some comments with suggestions on how to improve them.
Besides that, I think there are no major issues to change/modify.
| break | ||
| paths = [docs_dir, ''] | ||
| req_files = ['pip_requirements.txt', 'requirements.txt'] | ||
| for path, req_file in itertools.product(paths, req_files): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see any logic change here, right?
We just had 2 nested for and now we use itertools.products that produces the same result in the end. Am I right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
>>> import itertools
>>> d = ['a', 'b']
>>> r = [1, 2]
>>> iter
iter( itertools
>>> list(itertools.product(d, r))
[('a', 1), ('a', 2), ('b', 1), ('b', 2)]
>>> for _d in d:
... for _r in r:
... print(_d, _r)
...
a 1
a 2
b 1
b 2
>>>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is the same result, but the break now exists the loop #2812 (comment)
| build_env=self.build_env_mock, | ||
| ) | ||
| python_env.install_core_requirements() | ||
| requirements = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use the same list of reqs (common) for both project (created in setUp) and append the ones that are specific for documentation type in each test.
This will be easier to follow and to change when we upgrade the reqs also.
| 'requirements_file' | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
| paths[docs_requirements] = True |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a simple comment in each of the cases saying what's the scenario and what we expect?
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| def test_install_user_requirements(self): | ||
| self.build_env_mock.project = self.project_sphinx |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a docstring here explaining the test case in general?
| paths[root_requirements] = False | ||
| with fake_paths_lookup(paths): | ||
| python_env.install_user_requirements() | ||
| args[-1] = '-r{}'.format(docs_requirements) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like this modification of the list, but I don't have a cleaner way of doing it :/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't like it either, but it was the only way I thought to reuse the previous list p:
| build_env=self.build_env_mock, | ||
| ) | ||
| python_env.install_core_requirements() | ||
| conda_requirements = [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, try to use a shared list.
| 'python', | ||
| mock.ANY, # pip path | ||
| 'install', | ||
| '-U', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can also use a shared args_pip for all these tests. You will need to change the -U by --upgrade but I think that's OK and it's better to use long attributes instead of short. So, 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is two types of the arg_pip, on conda the --use-wheel isn't used. Is that on purpose? or perhaps we can unify both :)?
humitos
added
PR: work in progress
|
|
||
| # No requirements file | ||
| # no requirements should be installed | ||
| self.build_env_mock.run.reset_mock() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
With the last update of the mock lib, the assert_not_called() was counting the previous calls too, so I have to reset it here.
|
@humitos I updated the tests, and now there is a shorter file, I think this can be even shorter if this is possible #3800 (comment) |
RichardLitt
added
PR: ready for review
and removed
PR: work in progress
Fix #2812
I didn't find any place that match the tests, so I added a new class.