Expose mock directly #335
Expose mock directly #335
Conversation
DominicOram
requested review from
callumforrester,
dperl-dls,
evalott100 and
coretl
| def assert_mock_put_called_with(signal: Signal, value: Any, wait=ANY, timeout=ANY): | ||
| backend = _get_mock_signal_backend(signal) | ||
| backend.put_mock.assert_called_with(value, wait=wait, timeout=timeout) | ||
| def get_mock_put(signal: Signal) -> Mock: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should: I think this function should have a docstring since it's name is confusing ("put" is a noun here but it looks like a verb because it is almost everywhere else). Alternatively I'm happy with a rename if you can think of something better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree on the docstring point.
I also think the name is confusing (it getting the Mock put of a mock backend rather than the underlying SoftSignal put).
Id say get_backend_put_mock would be better.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't like having the word backend exposed to the user as nothing else externally facing in this file mentions backend, they all use mock_put as a phrase so this should match them. Added the docstring though
DominicOram
force-pushed
the
325_expose_mock_directly
branch
from
52cf941
to
2a31b33
Compare
DominicOram
force-pushed
the
325_expose_mock_directly
branch
from
2a31b33
to
80090f4
Compare
abbiemery
force-pushed
the
325_expose_mock_directly
branch
from
085e770
to
03cc49c
Compare
Fixes #325
This is a little messier than
assert_mock_put_called_withfor the case where you just care about the value and not thekwargs, but I think that in general it's nicer to supply theMockas it's a well known object that developers can then just use as they wish.