Documentation for asserting values of `unittest.mock.Mock.call_args_list`

[himkt]

BPO	47209
Nosy	@himkt

^{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 2022-04-04.03:24:22.676>
labels = ['3.11', 'type-bug', 'docs']
title = 'Documentation for asserting values of `unittest.mock.Mock.call_args_list`'
updated_at = <Date 2022-04-04.05:58:03.586>
user = 'https://github.com/himkt'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2022-04-04.05:58:03.586>
actor = 'himkt'
assignee = 'docs@python'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Documentation']
creation = <Date 2022-04-04.03:24:22.676>
creator = 'himkt'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 47209
keywords = []
message_count = 3.0
messages = ['416650', '416652', '416653']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['docs@python', 'himkt']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue47209'
versions = ['Python 3.11']

[himkt]

Currently documentation says we can check call_args_list by providing a list of tuples of arguments.

>>> expected = [(), ((3, 4),), ({'key': 'fish', 'next': 'w00t!'},)]
>>> mock.call_args_list == expected
True

(from https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/unittest.mock.html#unittest.mock.Mock.call_args_list)

However, I think we have to wrap all arguments with call.
I'd happy to send a patch if it should be fixed.

### Reproduce:

import time
from unittest.mock import call
from unittest.mock import patch


with patch("time.sleep") as mock_obj:
    time.sleep(1)
    time.sleep(2)

    print("mock_obj.call_args_list")
    print(mock_obj.call_args_list)

    print("mock_obj.call_args_list == [(1,), (2,)]")
    print(mock_obj.call_args_list == [(1,), (2,)])
    print("mock_obj.call_args_list == [call(1,), call(2,)]")
    print(mock_obj.call_args_list == [call(1,), call(2,)])

> python demo.py                                                                                                                                                             2022-04-04 12:03:18
mock_obj.call_args_list
[call(1), call(2)]
mock_obj.call_args_list == [(1,), (2,)]
False
mock_obj.call_args_list == [call(1,), call(2,)]
True

### Links

• Documentation in repo: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/4216dce04b7d3f329beaaafc82a77c4ac6cf4d57/Doc/library/unittest.mock.rst
• Documentation in page: https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/unittest.mock.html#unittest.mock.Mock.call_args_list

[himkt]

So sorry, documentation is not wrong.
It only need to wrap an argument when it is a singular value.

But I'm still wondering if we can unify documentation to wrap call (e.g. https://github.com/himkt/cpython/blob/main/Doc/library/unittest.mock-examples.rst#checking-multiple-calls-with-mock does it).

[himkt]

It only need to wrap an argument when it is a singular value.

It is also wrong..., sorry.
To compare a single value, I should have passed a tuple of tuples.

> python demo.py                                                                                                                                                             2022-04-04 14:56:41
mock_obj.call_args_list
[call(1), call(2)]
mock_obj.call_args_list == [(1,), (2,)]
False
mock_obj.call_args_list == [call(1,), call(2,)]
True
mock_obj.call_args_list == [((1,),), ((2,),)]
True

[tirkarthi]

Just to add call objects themselves are tuples. The docstring of _Call has similar examples

cpython/Lib/unittest/mock.py

Lines 2418 to 2436 in 2fadde7

	class _Call(tuple):
	"""
	A tuple for holding the results of a call to a mock, either in the form
	`(args, kwargs)` or `(name, args, kwargs)`.
	If args or kwargs are empty then a call tuple will compare equal to
	a tuple without those values. This makes comparisons less verbose::
	_Call(('name', (), {})) == ('name',)
	_Call(('name', (1,), {})) == ('name', (1,))
	_Call(((), {'a': 'b'})) == ({'a': 'b'},)
	The `_Call` object provides a useful shortcut for comparing with call::
	_Call(((1, 2), {'a': 3})) == call(1, 2, a=3)
	_Call(('foo', (1, 2), {'a': 3})) == call.foo(1, 2, a=3)
	If the _Call has no name then it will match any name.
	"""

[slateny]

@himkt Do you still think the docs need clarification or are fine as-is?