AsyncMock add .awaited like .called

[lisroach]

BPO	38161
Nosy	@lisroach, @tirkarthi
PRs	bpo-38161: Removes _AwaitEvent from AsyncMock. #16443 [3.8] bpo-38161: Removes _AwaitEvent from AsyncMock. (GH-16443) #16481

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2019-09-13.15:49:28.578>
labels = ['type-feature', '3.8', '3.9']
title = 'AsyncMock add `.awaited` like `.called`'
updated_at = <Date 2019-09-30.04:23:36.840>
user = 'https://github.com/lisroach'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2019-09-30.04:23:36.840>
actor = 'lisroach'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = []
creation = <Date 2019-09-13.15:49:28.578>
creator = 'lisroach'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 38161
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 6.0
messages = ['352345', '352352', '352828', '353427', '353529', '353532']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['lisroach', 'xtreak']
pr_nums = ['16443', '16481']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue38161'
versions = ['Python 3.8', 'Python 3.9']

[lisroach]

Currently Mock has a .called attribute, we could add an equivalent .awaited that returns True or False if the object has been awaited on.

[tirkarthi]

awaited is now initialized with an Event object. Do you had any use case in mind while designing it? I think it's a good choice to have True/False instead of being used to give an Event object that is not used.

[lisroach]

Yeah I think the current awaited ought to at least be a private variable, since people will assume it works like a boolean to match .called. Then we could add a new, proper, awaited that would function like:

>>> mock = AsyncMock()
>>> cr_mock = mock()
>>> mock.called
True
>>> mock.awaited
False
>>> await cr_mock
>>> mock.awaited
True

[lisroach]

Looking at this more, I think I want to just remove the current awaited object. The PR in asyntest makes it seem pretty cool: Martiusweb/asynctest#64

But I have issue with the naming (await_event is probably better for us), and I'm not sure how to document it well and ensure it's well tested.

With the 3.8 release coming up fast I'd rather remove it for now and then add it back in after some more thought has been given to the feature, instead of getting stuck with a not fully thought out attribute we have to worry about deprecating.

[lisroach]

New changeset 25e115e by Lisa Roach in branch 'master':
bpo-38161: Removes _AwaitEvent from AsyncMock. (GH-16443)
25e115e

[lisroach]

New changeset 36e7e4a by Lisa Roach (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.8':
bpo-38161: Removes _AwaitEvent from AsyncMock. (GH-16443) (GH-16481)
36e7e4a

[erlend-aasland]

Lisa retargeted this issue to instead remove the .awaited member from AsyncMock (this was done with #16443). The retargeted issue has been resolved; closing this issue.