unittest for system testing

[Rita]

thanks for the responses.


I run the application ever few weeks or so...its currently setup like this


#!/usr/bin/env bash

function testAfile() {
  ..
  ..
  return 0
}

then if all tests are OK then I do
exec program "$@"

Unittest is for code it seems but I though I could bolt it on for system
testing also :p





On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Steven D'Aprano <
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:

> Sorry for breaking threading, but the original post has not come through
> to me.
>
> > On 18/10/2012 01:22, Rita wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, I use a shell script to test how my system behaves before I
> > deploy an application. For instance, I check if fileA, fileB, and fileC
> > exist and if they do I go and start up my application.
>
> Do you run the shell script once, before installing the application, or
> every time the application launches?
>
> Do you realise that this is vulnerable to race conditions? E.g:
>
> Time = 10am exactly: shell script runs, fileA etc exist;
>
> Time = 10am and 1 millisecond: another process deletes fileA etc;
>
> Time = 10am and 2 milliseconds: application launches, cannot find
>        fileA etc and crashes.
>
>
> Depending on what your application does, this could be a security hole.
>
> Regardless of what the shell script reports, to be robust your Python
> application needs to protect against the case that fileA etc are missing.
> Even if all it does is report an error, save the user's work and exit.
>
>
> > This works great BUT
> >
> > I would like to use python and in particular unittest module to test my
> > system and then deploy my app. I understand unittest is for functional
> > testing but I think this too would be a case for it. Any thoughts? I am
> > not looking for code in particular but just some ideas on how to use
> > python better in situations like this.
>
> Well, you *could* use unittest, but frankly I think that's a case of
> using a hammer to nail in screws. Unittest is awesome for what it does.
> It's not so well suited for this.
>
> Compare these two pieces of code (untested, so they probably won't work
> exactly as given):
>
> # sample 1
> import os
> import sys
> for name in ['fileA', 'fileB', 'fileC']:
>     if not os.path.exists(name):
>         print('missing essential file %s' % name)
>         sys.exit(1)
>
> run_application()
>
>
>
> # sample 2
> import os
> import sys
> import unittest
>
> class PreRunTest(unittest.TestCase):
>     list_of_files = ['fileA', 'fileB', 'fileC']
>     def testFilesExist(self):
>         for name in self.list_of_files:
>             assertTrue(os.path.exists(name)
>
> total_tests, failed_tests = unittest.testmod()  # I think...
>
> if failed_tests != 0:
>     sys.exit(1)
>
> run_application()
>
>
>
> I think the first sample is much to be preferred, and not just because it
> is a couple of lines shorter. There's less magic involved.
>
>
> --
> Steven
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>



-- 
--- Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20121018/b09b87f9/attachment.html>