Test AssertionError: Field method on_change for unknown field
73 views
Skip to first unread message
Jesús Martín Jiménez
Aug 25, 2016, 4:15:04 AM8/25/16
to tryton
Hi,
I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or the desired behavior.
[1]
FAIL: test_field_methods (trytond.modules.stock_number_of_packages.tests.test_stock_number_of_packages.TestCase)
Test field methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py", line 80, in wrapper
result = func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py", line 201, in test_field_methods
mname, attr))
AssertionError: Field method "stock.inventory.line"."on_change_lot" for unknown field
I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or the desired behavior.
[1]
FAIL: test_field_methods (trytond.modules.stock_number_of_packages.tests.test_stock_number_of_packages.TestCase)
Test field methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py", line 80, in wrapper
result = func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py", line 201, in test_field_methods
mname, attr))
AssertionError: Field method "stock.inventory.line"."on_change_lot" for unknown field
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
Aug 25, 2016, 4:23:01 AM8/25/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit:
when the stock_lot module is not installed.
That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot
module is installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the
class.
>
> [1]
> FAIL: test_field_methods
> (trytond.modules.stock_number_of_packages.tests.test_stock_number_of_packages.TestCase)
> Test field methods
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py",
> line 80, in wrapper
> result = func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py",
> line 201, in test_field_methods
> mname, attr))
> AssertionError: Field method "stock.inventory.line"."on_change_lot" for
> unknown field
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "tryton" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/56ad77e9-c67a-477c-ad96-edb7384977e8%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/56ad77e9-c67a-477c-ad96-edb7384977e8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
www.koolpi.com
Twitter: @pokoli_srk
> Hi,
>
> I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
> to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
> method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
> test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
> the desired behavior.
For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method
>
> I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
> to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
> method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
> test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
> the desired behavior.
when the stock_lot module is not installed.
That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot
module is installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the
class.
>
> [1]
> FAIL: test_field_methods
> (trytond.modules.stock_number_of_packages.tests.test_stock_number_of_packages.TestCase)
> Test field methods
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py",
> line 80, in wrapper
> result = func(*args, **kwargs)
> File
> "/home/jesus/projectes/tryton/.../trytond/trytond/tests/test_tryton.py",
> line 201, in test_field_methods
> mname, attr))
> AssertionError: Field method "stock.inventory.line"."on_change_lot" for
> unknown field
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "tryton" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/56ad77e9-c67a-477c-ad96-edb7384977e8%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/56ad77e9-c67a-477c-ad96-edb7384977e8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
www.koolpi.com
Twitter: @pokoli_srk
Guillem Barba Domingo
Aug 25, 2016, 4:56:42 AM8/25/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
2016-08-25 10:22 GMT+02:00 Sergi Almacellas Abellana <se...@koolpi.com>:
El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit:
Hi,
I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
the desired behavior.
For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method when the stock_lot module is not installed.
That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot module is installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the class.
I think it's better to raise a warning instead of an assert exception for this test.
To have an unused method is not an error/crash. For example, pylint defines the "unused param/variable/import" as a warning, not an error.
Guillem Barba
http://www.guillem.alcarrer.net
http://www.guillem.alcarrer.net
Cédric Krier
Aug 25, 2016, 5:45:04 AM8/25/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 2016-08-25 10:22, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
> El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
> >to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
> >method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
> >test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
> >the desired behavior.
>
> For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method when
> the stock_lot module is not installed.
>
> That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot module is
> installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the class.
This is not very elegant. Indeed I think it will be better to install
> El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
> >to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
> >method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
> >test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
> >the desired behavior.
>
> For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method when
> the stock_lot module is not installed.
>
> That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot module is
> installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the class.
the extra_depends in the setupClass.
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
Guillem Barba Domingo
Aug 25, 2016, 7:54:52 AM8/25/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
2016-08-25 11:41 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <cedric...@b2ck.com>:
On 2016-08-25 10:22, Sergi Almacellas Abellana wrote:
> El 25/08/16 a les 10:02, Jesús Martín Jiménez ha escrit:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm testing a customized module and I run into an issue I'm not sure how
> >to resolve. My module has an extras_depend of stock_lot and an on_change
> >method for lot field. It works well, but when I try to pass the unittest
> >test, it fails with this traceback [1]. I'm not sure if it is a bug or
> >the desired behavior.
>
> For me is the expected behavior if you define the on_change_lot method when
> the stock_lot module is not installed.
>
> That can be solved by defining the on_change only if the stock_lot module is
> installed, which can be done on the __setup__ method of the class.
This is not very elegant. Indeed I think it will be better to install
the extra_depends in the setupClass.
The ideal would be to run tests with only the dependencies and also (another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption.
Sergi Almacellas Abellana
Aug 25, 2016, 10:02:15 AM8/25/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
El 25/08/16 a les 13:54, Guillem Barba Domingo ha escrit:
dependencies and other with the extra_depends.
> The ideal would be to run tests with only the dependencies and also
> (another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum
> coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption.
>
That's possible if you use two scenarios. One with the minimum
> (another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum
> coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption.
>
dependencies and other with the extra_depends.
Guillem Barba Domingo
Aug 26, 2016, 2:58:57 AM8/26/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
2016-08-25 16:02 GMT+02:00 Sergi Almacellas Abellana <se...@koolpi.com>:
El 25/08/16 a les 13:54, Guillem Barba Domingo ha escrit:
The ideal would be to run tests with only the dependencies and alsoThat's possible if you use two scenarios. One with the minimum dependencies and other with the extra_depends.
(another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum
coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption.
The assert is not raised in the scenarios but in the Unit Test
Cédric Krier
Aug 26, 2016, 3:45:03 AM8/26/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
otherwise you can not test all the methods and views.
I thought ModuleTestCase could do it but it will be complicated compare
to how easy it is to just override setUpClass to do it.
Jesús Martín Jiménez
Aug 26, 2016, 5:05:12 AM8/26/16
to try...@googlegroups.com
2016-08-26 9:40 GMT+02:00 Cédric Krier <cedric...@b2ck.com>:
On 2016-08-26 08:58, Guillem Barba Domingo wrote:
> 2016-08-25 16:02 GMT+02:00 Sergi Almacellas Abellana <se...@koolpi.com>:
>
> > El 25/08/16 a les 13:54, Guillem Barba Domingo ha escrit:
> >
> >> The ideal would be to run tests with only the dependencies and also
> >> (another execution) with each extra_depends. It will give us the maximum
> >> coverage... but provably with an ¿unacceptable? time consumption.
> >>
> >> That's possible if you use two scenarios. One with the minimum
> > dependencies and other with the extra_depends.
>
>
> The assert is not raised in the scenarios but in the Unit Test
That's why for me you must install the extra_depends in the setUpClass
otherwise you can not test all the methods and views.
I thought ModuleTestCase could do it but it will be complicated compare
to how easy it is to just override setUpClass to do it.
Thanks a lot. It worked for me!
--
Cédric Krier - B2CK SPRL
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tryton" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tryton/20160826074049.GH12158%40tetsuo.
--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages