##// END OF EJS Templates
Tweak out the process controller class so it works interactively better...
Tweak out the process controller class so it works interactively better In the IPython shell launched from the console, it works pretty well now. From the qt-console, not so much.

File last commit:

r4892:0707dc54
r6130:b0673acd
Show More
dtexample.py
164 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.
"""
from IPython.utils.py3compat import doctest_refactor_print
def pyfunc():
"""Some pure python tests...
>>> pyfunc()
'pyfunc'
>>> import os
>>> 2+3
5
>>> for i in range(3):
... print i,
... print i+1,
...
0 1 1 2 2 3
"""
return 'pyfunc'
@doctest_refactor_print
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,
....: print i+1,
....:
0 1 1 2 2 3
Examples that access the operating system work:
In [1]: !echo hello
hello
In [2]: !echo hello > /tmp/foo
In [3]: !cat /tmp/foo
hello
In [4]: rm -f /tmp/foo
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
@doctest_refactor_print
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'
@doctest_refactor_print
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'