 |
 |
 |
Python Library Reference |  |
 |
 |
doctest is serious about requiring exact matches in expected output. If even a single character doesn't match, the test fails. This will probably surprise you a few times, as you learn exactly what Python does and doesn't guarantee about output. For example, when printing a dict, Python doesn't guarantee that the key-value pairs will be printed in any particular order, so a test like
>>> foo()
{"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
is vulnerable! One workaround is to do
>>> foo() == {"Hermione": "hippogryph", "Harry": "broomstick"}
True
instead. Another is to do
>>> d = foo().items()
>>> d.sort()
>>> d
[('Harry', 'broomstick'), ('Hermione', 'hippogryph')]
There are others, but you get the idea.
Another bad idea is to print things that embed an object address, like
>>> id(1.0) # certain to fail some of the time 7948648 >>> class C: pass >>> C() # the default repr() for instances embeds an address <__main__.C instance at 0x00AC18F0>
The ELLIPSIS directive gives a nice approach for the last example:
>>> C() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS <__main__.C instance at 0x...>
Floating-point numbers are also subject to small output variations across platforms, because Python defers to the platform C library for float formatting, and C libraries vary widely in quality here.
>>> 1./7 # risky 0.14285714285714285 >>> print 1./7 # safer 0.142857142857 >>> print round(1./7, 6) # much safer 0.142857
Numbers of the form I/2.**J are safe across all platforms, and I
often contrive doctest examples to produce numbers of that form:
>>> 3./4 # utterly safe 0.75
Simple fractions are also easier for people to understand, and that makes for better documentation.
|
|
|
Python Library Reference | |
|
|