##// END OF EJS Templates
Leak less files during test....
Leak less files during test. Tracks all created files and destroy them all during teardown. Otherwise multiple call to mktmp would leak previously unclosed files. This should really ideally be a context manager and be tracked better.

File last commit:

r22963:2961b531
r24341:09e52292
Show More
dtexample.py
157 lines | 2.8 KiB | text/x-python | PythonLexer
"""Simple example using doctests.
This file just contains doctests both using plain python and IPython prompts.
All tests should be loaded by nose.
"""
def pyfunc():
"""Some pure python tests...
>>> pyfunc()
'pyfunc'
>>> import os
>>> 2+3
5
>>> for i in range(3):
... print(i, end=' ')
... print(i+1, end=' ')
...
0 1 1 2 2 3
"""
return 'pyfunc'
def ipfunc():
"""Some ipython tests...
In [1]: import os
In [3]: 2+3
Out[3]: 5
In [26]: for i in range(3):
....: print(i, end=' ')
....: print(i+1, end=' ')
....:
0 1 1 2 2 3
Examples that access the operating system work:
In [1]: !echo hello
hello
In [2]: !echo hello > /tmp/foo_iptest
In [3]: !cat /tmp/foo_iptest
hello
In [4]: rm -f /tmp/foo_iptest
It's OK to use '_' for the last result, but do NOT try to use IPython's
numbered history of _NN outputs, since those won't exist under the
doctest environment:
In [7]: 'hi'
Out[7]: 'hi'
In [8]: print(repr(_))
'hi'
In [7]: 3+4
Out[7]: 7
In [8]: _+3
Out[8]: 10
In [9]: ipfunc()
Out[9]: 'ipfunc'
"""
return 'ipfunc'
def ranfunc():
"""A function with some random output.
Normal examples are verified as usual:
>>> 1+3
4
But if you put '# random' in the output, it is ignored:
>>> 1+3
junk goes here... # random
>>> 1+2
again, anything goes #random
if multiline, the random mark is only needed once.
>>> 1+2
You can also put the random marker at the end:
# random
>>> 1+2
# random
.. or at the beginning.
More correct input is properly verified:
>>> ranfunc()
'ranfunc'
"""
return 'ranfunc'
def random_all():
"""A function where we ignore the output of ALL examples.
Examples:
# all-random
This mark tells the testing machinery that all subsequent examples should
be treated as random (ignoring their output). They are still executed,
so if a they raise an error, it will be detected as such, but their
output is completely ignored.
>>> 1+3
junk goes here...
>>> 1+3
klasdfj;
>>> 1+2
again, anything goes
blah...
"""
pass
def iprand():
"""Some ipython tests with random output.
In [7]: 3+4
Out[7]: 7
In [8]: print('hello')
world # random
In [9]: iprand()
Out[9]: 'iprand'
"""
return 'iprand'
def iprand_all():
"""Some ipython tests with fully random output.
# all-random
In [7]: 1
Out[7]: 99
In [8]: print('hello')
world
In [9]: iprand_all()
Out[9]: 'junk'
"""
return 'iprand_all'