[Freeipa-devel] [PATCHES] 0094-0099 Make Fuzzy objects available for the whole ipatests module

Petr Viktorin pviktori at redhat.com
Mon Sep 16 13:04:02 UTC 2013


On 09/16/2013 02:36 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 09/13/2013 07:04 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
[...]
>>> Replacing it would either a) replicate its functionality almost
>>> completely or b) spread duplicate regex code all over the place.
>>
>> I'd go for b; spreading this code:
>>      import re
>>      some_regex = re.compile('some.*regex$')
>>      ...
>>      assert some_regex.search(x)
>> instead of:
>>      from wherever import Fuzzy
>>      warm_fuzzy = Fuzzy('some.*regex$')
>>      ...
>>      assert x == warm_fuzzy
>> all over the place is fine in my book. And you can even, say, add custom
>> flags to the regex without complicating shared code.
>
> Right, and it's all duplicate. Just look in his patch how many times
> fuzzy.digits is used. What's going to happen is someone is going to come
> along later and say "Geez, we have a ton of some_regex =
> re.compile('\d+'), I should make a macro thinger out of this" and we're
> back where we started.

The first two lines only need to be there once, in the other files you 
can just import some_regex, the same way you can import the Fuzzy object.

>> The rest of Fuzzy functionality consists of strict type checking (which
>> isn't really necessary in integration tests), and the ability to call
>> arbitrary callables (which is just the scope creep I was talking about).
>> By the way, in current tests these features are hardly ever used in
>> combination.
>
> Here we agree. I'd prefer to keep Fuzzy limited to just simple regex and
> woudln't object to delegating the other enforcement to something else.

The type checking is actually a big part of Fuzzy functionality, since 
in the API we want all non-binary strings to be unicode and not str.

>>> That isn't to say that Fuzzy isn't being abused, but that is also the
>>> responsibility of the reviewers to be strict about.
>>
>> Then perhaps I'm too strict, but I say that using it outside of the
>> declarative tests is abuse.
>> Especially if it takes six patches with hundreds of changed lines to
>> repurpose Fuzzy for integration tests (but that's not part of "-1 to the
>> idea").
>
> That is hardly fair. The bulk of the patches just change imports.

The patches make Fuzzy enforce basestring type by default, instead of 
unicode. But in the IPA API we normally want only unicode, so almost all 
*usages* of Fuzzy are then changed to enforce unicode.

That is bad because IMO Fuzzy is specific to the declarative API tests 
and should have defaults made for them.

> So to summarize, I think:
>
> - Fuzzy should remain as a regex should remain as a regex shortcut
> - The non-regex features can be moved elsewhere
> - I don't really have a handle on how he intended to use this for
> integration testing, so I don't have an opinion here. But I'd expect
> that most integration tests depend more on return values than comparing
> against "known good".

We're getting closer to an agreement :)
- Fuzzy should remain as a regex should remain as a regex shortcut *for 
our declarative tests which need type-checking*
- The non-regex *and non-typechecking* features can be moved elsewhere 
(they actually are: assert_deepequal allows plain callables, it's just a 
matter of using that in the tests and then removing the functionality 
from Fuzzy)
- In integration testing, if we do need to check the output of commands, 
we don't really care about the bytes/unicode distinction, so the re 
module is enough.

-- 
Petr³




More information about the Freeipa-devel mailing list