Unit testing is, not surprisingly, the act of testing a "unit" in your application. In this context, a "unit" is often a function or a method of a class instance. The unit is also referred to as a "unit under test".
The goal of a single unit test is to test only some permutation of the "unit under test". If you write a unit test that aims to verify the result of a particular codepath through a Python function, you need only be concerned about testing the code that lives in the function body itself. If the function accepts a parameter that represents a complex application "domain object" (such as a resource, a database connection, or an SMTP server), the argument provided to this function during a unit test need not be and likely should not be a "real" implementation object. For example, although a particular function implementation may accept an argument that represents an SMTP server object, and the function may call a method of this object when the system is operating normally that would result in an email being sent, a unit test of this codepath of the function does not need to test that an email is actually sent. It just needs to make sure that the function calls the method of the object provided as an argument that would send an email if the argument happened to be the "real" implementation of an SMTP server object.
An integration test, on the other hand, is a different form of testing in which the interaction between two or more "units" is explicitly tested. Integration tests verify that the components of your application work together. You might make sure that an email was actually sent in an integration test.
A functional test is a form of integration test in which the application is run "literally". You would have to make sure that an email was actually sent in a functional test, because it tests your code end to end.
It is often considered best practice to write each type of tests for any given codebase. Unit testing often provides the opportunity to obtain better "coverage": it's usually possible to supply a unit under test with arguments and/or an environment which causes all of its potential codepaths to be executed. This is usually not as easy to do with a set of integration or functional tests, but integration and functional testing provides a measure of assurance that your "units" work together, as they will be expected to when your application is run in production.
The suggested mechanism for unit and integration testing of a :app:`Pyramid` application is the Python :mod:`unittest` module. Although this module is named :mod:`unittest`, it is actually capable of driving both unit and integration tests. A good :mod:`unittest` tutorial is available within Dive Into Python by Mark Pilgrim.
:app:`Pyramid` provides a number of facilities that make unit, integration, and functional tests easier to write. The facilities become particularly useful when your code calls into :app:`Pyramid` -related framework functions.
:app:`Pyramid` uses a "global" (actually :term:`thread local`) data structure to hold on to two items: the current :term:`request` and the current :term:`application registry`. These data structures are available via the :func:`pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_request` and :func:`pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_registry` functions, respectively. See :ref:`threadlocals_chapter` for information about these functions and the data structures they return.
If your code uses these get_current_* functions or calls :app:`Pyramid` code which uses get_current_* functions, you will need to call :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` in your test setup and you will need to call :func:`pyramid.testing.tearDown` in your test teardown. :func:`~pyramid.testing.setUp` pushes a registry onto the :term:`thread local` stack, which makes the get_current_* functions work. It returns a :term:`Configurator` object which can be used to perform extra configuration required by the code under test. :func:`~pyramid.testing.tearDown` pops the thread local stack.
Normally when a Configurator is used directly with the main block of a Pyramid application, it defers performing any "real work" until its .commit method is called (often implicitly by the :meth:`pyramid.config.Configurator.make_wsgi_app` method). The Configurator returned by :func:`~pyramid.testing.setUp` is an autocommitting Configurator, however, which performs all actions implied by methods called on it immediately. This is more convenient for unit-testing purposes than needing to call :meth:`pyramid.config.Configurator.commit` in each test after adding extra configuration statements.
The use of the :func:`~pyramid.testing.setUp` and :func:`~pyramid.testing.tearDown` functions allows you to supply each unit test method in a test case with an environment that has an isolated registry and an isolated request for the duration of a single test. Here's an example of using this feature:
The above will make sure that :func:`~pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_registry` called within a test case method of MyTest will return the :term:`application registry` associated with the config Configurator instance. Each test case method attached to MyTest will use an isolated registry.
The :func:`~pyramid.testing.setUp` and :func:`~pyramid.testing.tearDown` functions accepts various arguments that influence the environment of the test. See the :ref:`testing_module` chapter for information about the extra arguments supported by these functions.
If you also want to make :func:`~pyramid.get_current_request` return something other than None during the course of a single test, you can pass a :term:`request` object into the :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` within the setUp method of your test:
If you pass a :term:`request` object into :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` within your test case's setUp, any test method attached to the MyTest test case that directly or indirectly calls :func:`~pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_request` will receive the request object. Otherwise, during testing, :func:`~pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_request` will return None. We use a "dummy" request implementation supplied by :class:`pyramid.testing.DummyRequest` because it's easier to construct than a "real" :app:`Pyramid` request object.
An alternative style of setting up a test configuration is to use the with statement and :func:`pyramid.testing.testConfig` to create a context manager. The context manager will call :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` before the code under test and :func:`pyramid.testing.tearDown` afterwards.
This style is useful for small self-contained tests. For example:
Thread local data structures are always a bit confusing, especially when they're used by frameworks. Sorry. So here's a rule of thumb: if you don't know whether you're calling code that uses the :func:`~pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_registry` or :func:`~pyramid.threadlocal.get_current_request` functions, or you don't care about any of this, but you still want to write test code, just always call :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` in your test's setUp method and :func:`pyramid.testing.tearDown` in your tests' tearDown method. This won't really hurt anything if the application you're testing does not call any get_current* function.
The Configurator API and the pyramid.testing module provide a number of functions which can be used during unit testing. These functions make :term:`configuration declaration` calls to the current :term:`application registry`, but typically register a "stub" or "dummy" feature in place of the "real" feature that the code would call if it was being run normally.
For example, let's imagine you want to unit test a :app:`Pyramid` view function.
Without doing anything special during a unit test, the call to :func:`~pyramid.security.has_permission` in this view function will always return a True value. When a :app:`Pyramid` application starts normally, it will populate a :term:`application registry` using :term:`configuration declaration` calls made against a :term:`Configurator`. But if this application registry is not created and populated (e.g. by initializing the configurator with an authorization policy), like when you invoke application code via a unit test, :app:`Pyramid` API functions will tend to either fail or return default results. So how do you test the branch of the code in this view function that raises :exc:`HTTPForbidden`?
The testing API provided by :app:`Pyramid` allows you to simulate various application registry registrations for use under a unit testing framework without needing to invoke the actual application configuration implied by its main function. For example, if you wanted to test the above view_fn (assuming it lived in the package named my.package), you could write a :class:`unittest.TestCase` that used the testing API.
In the above example, we create a MyTest test case that inherits from :mod:`unittest.TestCase`. If it's in our :app:`Pyramid` application, it will be found when setup.py test is run. It has two test methods.
The first test method, test_view_fn_forbidden tests the view_fn when the authentication policy forbids the current user the edit permission. Its third line registers a "dummy" "non-permissive" authorization policy using the :meth:`~pyramid.config.Configurator.testing_securitypolicy` method, which is a special helper method for unit testing.
We then create a :class:`pyramid.testing.DummyRequest` object which simulates a WebOb request object API. A :class:`pyramid.testing.DummyRequest` is a request object that requires less setup than a "real" :app:`Pyramid` request. We call the function being tested with the manufactured request. When the function is called, :func:`pyramid.security.has_permission` will call the "dummy" authentication policy we've registered through :meth:`~pyramid.config.Configuration.testing_securitypolicy`, which denies access. We check that the view function raises a :exc:`HTTPForbidden` error.
The second test method, named test_view_fn_allowed tests the alternate case, where the authentication policy allows access. Notice that we pass different values to :meth:`~pyramid.config.Configurator.testing_securitypolicy` to obtain this result. We assert at the end of this that the view function returns a value.
Note that the test calls the :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` function in its setUp method and the :func:`pyramid.testing.tearDown` function in its tearDown method. We assign the result of :func:`pyramid.testing.setUp` as config on the unittest class. This is a :term:`Configurator` object and all methods of the configurator can be called as necessary within tests. If you use any of the :class:`~pyramid.config.Configurator` APIs during testing, be sure to use this pattern in your test case's setUp and tearDown; these methods make sure you're using a "fresh" :term:`application registry` per test run.
See the :ref:`testing_module` chapter for the entire :app:`Pyramid` -specific testing API. This chapter describes APIs for registering a security policy, registering resources at paths, registering event listeners, registering views and view permissions, and classes representing "dummy" implementations of a request and a resource.
In :app:`Pyramid`, a unit test typically relies on "mock" or "dummy" implementations to give the code under test only enough context to run.
"Integration testing" implies another sort of testing. In the context of a :app:`Pyramid` integration test, the test logic tests the functionality of some code and its integration with the rest of the :app:`Pyramid` framework.
In :app:`Pyramid` applications that are plugins to Pyramid, you can create an integration test by including its includeme function via :meth:`pyramid.config.Configurator.include` in the test's setup code. This causes the entire :app:`Pyramid` environment to be set up and torn down as if your application was running "for real". This is a heavy-hammer way of making sure that your tests have enough context to run properly, and it tests your code's integration with the rest of :app:`Pyramid`.
Let's demonstrate this by showing an integration test for a view. The below test assumes that your application's package name is myapp, and that there is a views module in the app with a function with the name my_view in it that returns the response 'Welcome to this application' after accessing some values that require a fully set up environment.
Unless you cannot avoid it, you should prefer writing unit tests that use the :class:`~pyramid.config.Configurator` API to set up the right "mock" registrations rather than creating an integration test. Unit tests will run faster (because they do less for each test) and the result of a unit test is usually easier to make assertions about.
Functional tests test your literal application.
The below test assumes that your application's package name is myapp, and that there is a view that returns an HTML body when the root URL is invoked. It further assumes that you've added a tests_require dependency on the WebTest package within your setup.py file. :term:`WebTest` is a functional testing package written by Ian Bicking.
When this test is run, each test creates a "real" WSGI application using the main function in your myapp.__init__ module and uses :term:`WebTest` to wrap that WSGI application. It assigns the result to self.testapp. In the test named test_root, we use the testapp's get method to invoke the root URL. We then assert that the returned HTML has the string Pyramid in it.