Bdb: add a unittest file (test.test_bdb)

[ColinWilliams]

BPO	19417
Nosy	@terryjreedy, @xdegaye, @Mariatta, @csabella, @miss-islington
PRs	bpo-19417: Add test_bdb.py #5217 [3.7] bpo-19417: Add test_bdb.py (GH-5217) #6146 [3.6] bpo-19417: Add test_bdb.py (GH-5217) #6150 [2.7] bpo-19417: Add test_bdb.py (GH-5217) #6156
Files	bdb.patch bdb.patch

^{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 = 'https://github.com/terryjreedy'
closed_at = <Date 2019-04-12.17:46:24.396>
created_at = <Date 2013-10-27.17:51:48.701>
labels = ['3.7', 'type-feature', 'tests']
title = 'Bdb: add a unittest file (test.test_bdb)'
updated_at = <Date 2019-04-12.17:46:24.396>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/ColinWilliams'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2019-04-12.17:46:24.396>
actor = 'xdegaye'
assignee = 'terry.reedy'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2019-04-12.17:46:24.396>
closer = 'xdegaye'
components = ['Tests']
creation = <Date 2013-10-27.17:51:48.701>
creator = 'Colin.Williams'
dependencies = []
files = ['32389', '32485']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 19417
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 17.0
messages = ['201481', '201948', '201949', '202041', '202063', '292489', '292492', '292578', '292597', '292599', '292621', '293836', '310157', '314053', '314054', '314105', '325474']
nosy_count = 6.0
nosy_names = ['terry.reedy', 'xdegaye', 'Colin.Williams', 'Mariatta', 'cheryl.sabella', 'miss-islington']
pr_nums = ['5217', '6146', '6150', '6156']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = 'resolved'
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue19417'
versions = ['Python 2.7', 'Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7']

[ColinWilliams]

This one is pretty involved. The tests might reach into the guts of the modules a bit too much, I'd be open to less invasive suggestions.

[terryjreedy]

Is the patch against 3.4? I am not sure if we backport new test files.

[terryjreedy]

Does all of the code for say, BdbTestCase.setUp, need to be repeated for each test method, versus being put in a .setUpClass method to be executed just once for all the methods in BdbTestCase.

[xdegaye]

A less invasive alternative could be to instrument Bdb with a subclass
that processes send-expect sequences. This is what does
http://code.google.com/p/pdb-clone/source/browse/Lib/test/test_bdb.py

This code could be adapted to run with python bdb.

[ColinWilliams]

I've updated the patch to consolidate some duplicated code. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to move anything to setUpClass without messing even more with the internals. I haven't had a chance to refine the code further based on xdegaye's suggestions, but I wanted to make sure I was getting feedback on the most up-to-date code.

[terryjreedy]

IDLE's debugger needs multiple patches. It is based on bdb. So I want to be able to understand the bdb code and know that it is sound. The file is nearly devoid of docstrings, so I would like to add those first, probably in a separate patch. A first draft can be derived from the bdb doc. Docstrings will help in reviewing the patch.

[csabella]

I'll work on the bdb docstrings.

[xdegaye]

The file is nearly devoid of docstrings, so I would like to add those first, probably in a separate patch.

Please move this new request for enhancement to a separate issue.

[terryjreedy]

While I have previously done docstrings and tests together, I can see that for this issue, separation might be preferable. Cherl, can you open a new issue and re-title the PR? (I don't know if that will be sufficient to 'move' it, but I hope so.)