Skip to content

gh-124176: create_autospec must not change how dataclass defaults are mocked #124724

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

gh-124176: create_autospec must not change how dataclass defaults are mocked #124724

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
bd73cda
gh-124176: `create_autospec` must not change how dataclass defaults a…
sobolevn Sep 28, 2024
81b4e00
Add more tests
sobolevn Oct 4, 2024
bfa9385
Apply suggestions from code review
sobolevn Oct 12, 2024
dd1fe12
Merge branch 'main' into issue-124176-2
sobolevn Oct 25, 2024
71f355e
Merge branch 'main' into issue-124176-2
ncoghlan Mar 25, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 15 additions & 0 deletions Lib/test/test_unittest/testmock/testhelpers.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1107,6 +1107,21 @@ class WithNonFields:
with self.assertRaisesRegex(AttributeError, msg):
mock.b

def test_dataclass_with_wider_default(self):
# If field defines an actual default, we don't need to change
# the default type. Since this is how it used to work before #124176
@dataclass
class WithWiderDefault:
narrow_default: int | None = field(default=30)

for mock in [
create_autospec(WithWiderDefault, instance=True),
create_autospec(WithWiderDefault()),
]:
with self.subTest(mock=mock):
self.assertIs(mock.narrow_default.__class__, int)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel both of these tests would be clearer if they actually showed what the thing ends up being, not just it's type, something like:

Suggested change
self.assertIs(mock.narrow_default.__class__, int)
self.assertIs(mock.narrow_default.__class__, int)
self.assertEqual(mock.narrow_default, 30)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Adding something along these lines would also distinguish the cases where we're expecting to mock a specific value from those where we're deriving an instance spec from a declared runtime type



class TestCallList(unittest.TestCase):

def test_args_list_contains_call_list(self):
Expand Down
8 changes: 5 additions & 3 deletions Lib/unittest/mock.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2758,13 +2758,15 @@ def create_autospec(spec, spec_set=False, instance=False, _parent=None,
f'[object={spec!r}]')
is_async_func = _is_async_func(spec)

entries = [(entry, _missing) for entry in dir(spec)]
base_entries = {entry: _missing for entry in dir(spec)}
if is_type and instance and is_dataclass(spec):
dataclass_fields = fields(spec)
entries.extend((f.name, f.type) for f in dataclass_fields)
entries = {f.name: f.type for f in dataclass_fields}
entries.update(base_entries)
_kwargs = {'spec': [f.name for f in dataclass_fields]}
else:
_kwargs = {'spec': spec}
entries = base_entries

if spec_set:
_kwargs = {'spec_set': spec}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2822,7 +2824,7 @@ def create_autospec(spec, spec_set=False, instance=False, _parent=None,
_name='()', _parent=mock,
wraps=wrapped)

for entry, original in entries:
for entry, original in entries.items():
if _is_magic(entry):
# MagicMock already does the useful magic methods for us
continue
Expand Down
Loading