mirror of
https://github.com/django/django.git
synced 2024-12-24 18:16:19 +00:00
c32fc79aa1
Thanks James Pic.
649 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
649 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
=====================================
|
|
Writing your first Django app, part 5
|
|
=====================================
|
|
|
|
This tutorial begins where :doc:`Tutorial 4 </intro/tutorial04>` left off.
|
|
We've built a Web-poll application, and we'll now create some automated tests
|
|
for it.
|
|
|
|
Introducing automated testing
|
|
=============================
|
|
|
|
What are automated tests?
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
Tests are simple routines that check the operation of your code.
|
|
|
|
Testing operates at different levels. Some tests might apply to a tiny detail
|
|
- *does a particular model method return values as expected?*, while others
|
|
examine the overall operation of the software - *does a sequence of user inputs
|
|
on the site produce the desired result?* That's no different from the kind of
|
|
testing you did earlier in :doc:`Tutorial 1 </intro/tutorial01>`, using the
|
|
shell to examine the behavior of a method, or running the application and
|
|
entering data to check how it behaves.
|
|
|
|
What's different in *automated* tests is that the testing work is done for
|
|
you by the system. You create a set of tests once, and then as you make changes
|
|
to your app, you can check that your code still works as you originally
|
|
intended, without having to perform time consuming manual testing.
|
|
|
|
Why you need to create tests
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
So why create tests, and why now?
|
|
|
|
You may feel that you have quite enough on your plate just learning
|
|
Python/Django, and having yet another thing to learn and do may seem
|
|
overwhelming and perhaps unnecessary. After all, our polls application is
|
|
working quite happily now; going through the trouble of creating automated
|
|
tests is not going to make it work any better. If creating the polls
|
|
application is the last bit of Django programming you will ever do, then true,
|
|
you don't need to know how to create automated tests. But, if that's not the
|
|
case, now is an excellent time to learn.
|
|
|
|
Tests will save you time
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Up to a certain point, 'checking that it seems to work' will be a satisfactory
|
|
test. In a more sophisticated application, you might have dozens of complex
|
|
interactions between components.
|
|
|
|
A change in any of those components could have unexpected consequences on the
|
|
application's behavior. Checking that it still 'seems to work' could mean
|
|
running through your code's functionality with twenty different variations of
|
|
your test data just to make sure you haven't broken something - not a good use
|
|
of your time.
|
|
|
|
That's especially true when automated tests could do this for you in seconds.
|
|
If something's gone wrong, tests will also assist in identifying the code
|
|
that's causing the unexpected behavior.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it may seem a chore to tear yourself away from your productive,
|
|
creative programming work to face the unglamorous and unexciting business
|
|
of writing tests, particularly when you know your code is working properly.
|
|
|
|
However, the task of writing tests is a lot more fulfilling than spending hours
|
|
testing your application manually or trying to identify the cause of a
|
|
newly-introduced problem.
|
|
|
|
Tests don't just identify problems, they prevent them
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
It's a mistake to think of tests merely as a negative aspect of development.
|
|
|
|
Without tests, the purpose or intended behavior of an application might be
|
|
rather opaque. Even when it's your own code, you will sometimes find yourself
|
|
poking around in it trying to find out what exactly it's doing.
|
|
|
|
Tests change that; they light up your code from the inside, and when something
|
|
goes wrong, they focus light on the part that has gone wrong - *even if you
|
|
hadn't even realized it had gone wrong*.
|
|
|
|
Tests make your code more attractive
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
You might have created a brilliant piece of software, but you will find that
|
|
many other developers will simply refuse to look at it because it lacks tests;
|
|
without tests, they won't trust it. Jacob Kaplan-Moss, one of Django's
|
|
original developers, says "Code without tests is broken by design."
|
|
|
|
That other developers want to see tests in your software before they take it
|
|
seriously is yet another reason for you to start writing tests.
|
|
|
|
Tests help teams work together
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The previous points are written from the point of view of a single developer
|
|
maintaining an application. Complex applications will be maintained by teams.
|
|
Tests guarantee that colleagues don't inadvertently break your code (and that
|
|
you don't break theirs without knowing). If you want to make a living as a
|
|
Django programmer, you must be good at writing tests!
|
|
|
|
Basic testing strategies
|
|
========================
|
|
|
|
There are many ways to approach writing tests.
|
|
|
|
Some programmers follow a discipline called "`test-driven development`_"; they
|
|
actually write their tests before they write their code. This might seem
|
|
counter-intuitive, but in fact it's similar to what most people will often do
|
|
anyway: they describe a problem, then create some code to solve it. Test-driven
|
|
development simply formalizes the problem in a Python test case.
|
|
|
|
More often, a newcomer to testing will create some code and later decide that
|
|
it should have some tests. Perhaps it would have been better to write some
|
|
tests earlier, but it's never too late to get started.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes it's difficult to figure out where to get started with writing tests.
|
|
If you have written several thousand lines of Python, choosing something to
|
|
test might not be easy. In such a case, it's fruitful to write your first test
|
|
the next time you make a change, either when you add a new feature or fix a bug.
|
|
|
|
So let's do that right away.
|
|
|
|
.. _test-driven development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
|
|
|
|
Writing our first test
|
|
======================
|
|
|
|
We identify a bug
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, there's a little bug in the ``polls`` application for us to fix
|
|
right away: the ``Poll.was_published_recently()`` method returns ``True`` if
|
|
the ``Poll`` was published within the last day (which is correct) but also if
|
|
the ``Poll``'s ``pub_date`` field is in the future (which certainly isn't).
|
|
|
|
You can see this in the Admin; create a poll whose date lies in the future;
|
|
you'll see that the ``Poll`` change list claims it was published recently.
|
|
|
|
You can also see this using the shell::
|
|
|
|
>>> import datetime
|
|
>>> from django.utils import timezone
|
|
>>> from polls.models import Poll
|
|
>>> # create a Poll instance with pub_date 30 days in the future
|
|
>>> future_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
|
|
>>> # was it published recently?
|
|
>>> future_poll.was_published_recently()
|
|
True
|
|
|
|
Since things in the future are not 'recent', this is clearly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Create a test to expose the bug
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
What we've just done in the shell to test for the problem is exactly what we
|
|
can do in an automated test, so let's turn that into an automated test.
|
|
|
|
The best place for an application's tests is in the application's ``tests.py``
|
|
file - the testing system will look there for tests automatically.
|
|
|
|
Put the following in the ``tests.py`` file in the ``polls`` application::
|
|
|
|
import datetime
|
|
|
|
from django.utils import timezone
|
|
from django.test import TestCase
|
|
|
|
from polls.models import Poll
|
|
|
|
class PollMethodTests(TestCase):
|
|
|
|
def test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
was_published_recently() should return False for polls whose
|
|
pub_date is in the future
|
|
"""
|
|
future_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
|
|
self.assertEqual(future_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
|
|
|
|
What we have done here is created a :class:`django.test.TestCase` subclass
|
|
with a method that creates a ``Poll`` instance with a ``pub_date`` in the
|
|
future. We then check the output of ``was_published_recently()`` - which
|
|
*ought* to be False.
|
|
|
|
Running tests
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
In the terminal, we can run our test::
|
|
|
|
python manage.py test polls
|
|
|
|
and you'll see something like::
|
|
|
|
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
|
|
F
|
|
======================================================================
|
|
FAIL: test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll (polls.tests.PollMethodTests)
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Traceback (most recent call last):
|
|
File "/path/to/mysite/polls/tests.py", line 16, in test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll
|
|
self.assertEqual(future_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
|
|
AssertionError: True != False
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Ran 1 test in 0.001s
|
|
|
|
FAILED (failures=1)
|
|
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
|
|
|
|
What happened is this:
|
|
|
|
* ``python manage.py test polls`` looked for tests in the ``polls`` application
|
|
|
|
* it found a subclass of the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class
|
|
|
|
* it created a special database for the purpose of testing
|
|
|
|
* it looked for test methods - ones whose names begin with ``test``
|
|
|
|
* in ``test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll`` it created a ``Poll``
|
|
instance whose ``pub_date`` field is 30 days in the future
|
|
|
|
* ... and using the ``assertEqual()`` method, it discovered that its
|
|
``was_published_recently()`` returns ``True``, though we wanted it to return
|
|
``False``
|
|
|
|
The test informs us which test failed and even the line on which the failure
|
|
occurred.
|
|
|
|
Fixing the bug
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
We already know what the problem is: ``Poll.was_published_recently()`` should
|
|
return ``False`` if its ``pub_date`` is in the future. Amend the method in
|
|
``models.py``, so that it will only return ``True`` if the date is also in the
|
|
past::
|
|
|
|
def was_published_recently(self):
|
|
now = timezone.now()
|
|
return now - datetime.timedelta(days=1) <= self.pub_date < now
|
|
|
|
and run the test again::
|
|
|
|
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
|
|
.
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Ran 1 test in 0.001s
|
|
|
|
OK
|
|
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
|
|
|
|
After identifying a bug, we wrote a test that exposes it and corrected the bug
|
|
in the code so our test passes.
|
|
|
|
Many other things might go wrong with our application in the future, but we can
|
|
be sure that we won't inadvertently reintroduce this bug, because simply
|
|
running the test will warn us immediately. We can consider this little portion
|
|
of the application pinned down safely forever.
|
|
|
|
More comprehensive tests
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
While we're here, we can further pin down the ``was_published_recently()``
|
|
method; in fact, it would be positively embarrassing if in fixing one bug we had
|
|
introduced another.
|
|
|
|
Add two more test methods to the same class, to test the behavior of the method
|
|
more comprehensively::
|
|
|
|
def test_was_published_recently_with_old_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
was_published_recently() should return False for polls whose pub_date
|
|
is older than 1 day
|
|
"""
|
|
old_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(days=30))
|
|
self.assertEqual(old_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
|
|
|
|
def test_was_published_recently_with_recent_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
was_published_recently() should return True for polls whose pub_date
|
|
is within the last day
|
|
"""
|
|
recent_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(hours=1))
|
|
self.assertEqual(recent_poll.was_published_recently(), True)
|
|
|
|
And now we have three tests that confirm that ``Poll.was_published_recently()``
|
|
returns sensible values for past, recent, and future polls.
|
|
|
|
Again, ``polls`` is a simple application, but however complex it grows in the
|
|
future and whatever other code it interacts with, we now have some guarantee
|
|
that the method we have written tests for will behave in expected ways.
|
|
|
|
Test a view
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
The polls application is fairly undiscriminating: it will publish any poll,
|
|
including ones whose ``pub_date`` field lies in the future. We should improve
|
|
this. Setting a ``pub_date`` in the future should mean that the Poll is
|
|
published at that moment, but invisible until then.
|
|
|
|
A test for a view
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
When we fixed the bug above, we wrote the test first and then the code to fix
|
|
it. In fact that was a simple example of test-driven development, but it
|
|
doesn't really matter in which order we do the work.
|
|
|
|
In our first test, we focused closely on the internal behavior of the code. For
|
|
this test, we want to check its behavior as it would be experienced by a user
|
|
through a web browser.
|
|
|
|
Before we try to fix anything, let's have a look at the tools at our disposal.
|
|
|
|
The Django test client
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
Django provides a test :class:`~django.test.client.Client` to simulate a user
|
|
interacting with the code at the view level. We can use it in ``tests.py``
|
|
or even in the shell.
|
|
|
|
We will start again with the shell, where we need to do a couple of things that
|
|
won't be necessary in ``tests.py``. The first is to set up the test environment
|
|
in the shell::
|
|
|
|
>>> from django.test.utils import setup_test_environment
|
|
>>> setup_test_environment()
|
|
|
|
Next we need to import the test client class (later in ``tests.py`` we will use
|
|
the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class, which comes with its own client, so
|
|
this won't be required)::
|
|
|
|
>>> from django.test.client import Client
|
|
>>> # create an instance of the client for our use
|
|
>>> client = Client()
|
|
|
|
With that ready, we can ask the client to do some work for us::
|
|
|
|
>>> # get a response from '/'
|
|
>>> response = client.get('/')
|
|
>>> # we should expect a 404 from that address
|
|
>>> response.status_code
|
|
404
|
|
>>> # on the other hand we should expect to find something at '/polls/'
|
|
>>> # we'll use 'reverse()' rather than a harcoded URL
|
|
>>> from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse
|
|
>>> response = client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
>>> response.status_code
|
|
200
|
|
>>> response.content
|
|
'\n\n\n <p>No polls are available.</p>\n\n'
|
|
>>> # note - you might get unexpected results if your ``TIME_ZONE``
|
|
>>> # in ``settings.py`` is not correct. If you need to change it,
|
|
>>> # you will also need to restart your shell session
|
|
>>> from polls.models import Poll
|
|
>>> from django.utils import timezone
|
|
>>> # create a Poll and save it
|
|
>>> p = Poll(question="Who is your favorite Beatle?", pub_date=timezone.now())
|
|
>>> p.save()
|
|
>>> # check the response once again
|
|
>>> response = client.get('/polls/')
|
|
>>> response.content
|
|
'\n\n\n <ul>\n \n <li><a href="/polls/1/">Who is your favorite Beatle?</a></li>\n \n </ul>\n\n'
|
|
>>> response.context['latest_poll_list']
|
|
[<Poll: Who is your favorite Beatle?>]
|
|
|
|
Improving our view
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
The list of polls shows polls that aren't published yet (i.e. those that have a
|
|
``pub_date`` in the future). Let's fix that.
|
|
|
|
In :doc:`Tutorial 4 </intro/tutorial04>` we deleted the view functions from
|
|
``views.py`` in favor of a :class:`~django.views.generic.list.ListView` in
|
|
``urls.py``::
|
|
|
|
url(r'^$',
|
|
ListView.as_view(
|
|
queryset=Poll.objects.order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
|
|
context_object_name='latest_poll_list',
|
|
template_name='polls/index.html'),
|
|
name='index'),
|
|
|
|
``response.context_data['latest_poll_list']`` extracts the data this view
|
|
places into the context.
|
|
|
|
We need to amend the line that gives us the ``queryset``::
|
|
|
|
queryset=Poll.objects.order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
|
|
|
|
Let's change the queryset so that it also checks the date by comparing it with
|
|
``timezone.now()``. First we need to add an import::
|
|
|
|
from django.utils import timezone
|
|
|
|
and then we must amend the existing ``url`` function to::
|
|
|
|
url(r'^$',
|
|
ListView.as_view(
|
|
queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now) \
|
|
.order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
|
|
context_object_name='latest_poll_list',
|
|
template_name='polls/index.html'),
|
|
name='index'),
|
|
|
|
``Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now)`` returns a queryset
|
|
containing Polls whose ``pub_date`` is less than or equal to - that is, earlier
|
|
than or equal to - ``timezone.now``. Notice that we use a callable queryset
|
|
argument, ``timezone.now``, which will be evaluated at request time. If we had
|
|
included the parentheses, ``timezone.now()`` would be evaluated just once when
|
|
the web server is started.
|
|
|
|
Testing our new view
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Now you can satisfy yourself that this behaves as expected by firing up the
|
|
runserver, loading the site in your browser, creating ``Polls`` with dates in
|
|
the past and future, and checking that only those that have been published are
|
|
listed. You don't want to have to do that *every single time you make any
|
|
change that might affect this* - so let's also create a test, based on our
|
|
shell session above.
|
|
|
|
Add the following to ``polls/tests.py``::
|
|
|
|
from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse
|
|
|
|
and we'll create a factory method to create polls as well as a new test class::
|
|
|
|
def create_poll(question, days):
|
|
"""
|
|
Creates a poll with the given `question` published the given number of
|
|
`days` offset to now (negative for polls published in the past,
|
|
positive for polls that have yet to be published).
|
|
"""
|
|
return Poll.objects.create(question=question,
|
|
pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=days))
|
|
|
|
class PollViewTests(TestCase):
|
|
def test_index_view_with_no_polls(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
If no polls exist, an appropriate message should be displayed.
|
|
"""
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 200)
|
|
self.assertContains(response, "No polls are available.")
|
|
self.assertQuerysetEqual(response.context['latest_poll_list'], [])
|
|
|
|
def test_index_view_with_a_past_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
Polls with a pub_date in the past should be displayed on the index page.
|
|
"""
|
|
create_poll(question="Past poll.", days=-30)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
self.assertQuerysetEqual(
|
|
response.context['latest_poll_list'],
|
|
['<Poll: Past poll.>']
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
def test_index_view_with_a_future_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
Polls with a pub_date in the future should not be displayed on the
|
|
index page.
|
|
"""
|
|
create_poll(question="Future poll.", days=30)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
self.assertContains(response, "No polls are available.", status_code=200)
|
|
self.assertQuerysetEqual(response.context['latest_poll_list'], [])
|
|
|
|
def test_index_view_with_future_poll_and_past_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
Even if both past and future polls exist, only past polls should be
|
|
displayed.
|
|
"""
|
|
create_poll(question="Past poll.", days=-30)
|
|
create_poll(question="Future poll.", days=30)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
self.assertQuerysetEqual(
|
|
response.context['latest_poll_list'],
|
|
['<Poll: Past poll.>']
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
def test_index_view_with_two_past_polls(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
The polls index page may display multiple polls.
|
|
"""
|
|
create_poll(question="Past poll 1.", days=-30)
|
|
create_poll(question="Past poll 2.", days=-5)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
|
|
self.assertQuerysetEqual(
|
|
response.context['latest_poll_list'],
|
|
['<Poll: Past poll 2.>', '<Poll: Past poll 1.>']
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
Let's look at some of these more closely.
|
|
|
|
First is a poll factory method, ``create_poll``, to take some repetition out
|
|
of the process of creating polls.
|
|
|
|
``test_index_view_with_no_polls`` doesn't create any polls, but checks the
|
|
message: "No polls are available." and verifies the ``latest_poll_list`` is
|
|
empty. Note that the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class provides some
|
|
additional assertion methods. In these examples, we use
|
|
:meth:`~django.test.TestCase.assertContains()` and
|
|
:meth:`~django.test.TestCase.assertQuerysetEqual()`.
|
|
|
|
In ``test_index_view_with_a_past_poll``, we create a poll and verify that it
|
|
appears in the list.
|
|
|
|
In ``test_index_view_with_a_future_poll``, we create a poll with a ``pub_date``
|
|
in the future. The database is reset for each test method, so the first poll is
|
|
no longer there, and so again the index shouldn't have any polls in it.
|
|
|
|
And so on. In effect, we are using the tests to tell a story of admin input
|
|
and user experience on the site, and checking that at every state and for every
|
|
new change in the state of the system, the expected results are published.
|
|
|
|
Testing the ``DetailView``
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
What we have works well; however, even though future polls don't appear in the
|
|
*index*, users can still reach them if they know or guess the right URL. So we
|
|
need similar constraints in the ``DetailViews``, by adding::
|
|
|
|
queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now)
|
|
|
|
to them - for example::
|
|
|
|
url(r'^(?P<pk>\d+)/$',
|
|
DetailView.as_view(
|
|
queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now),
|
|
model=Poll,
|
|
template_name='polls/detail.html'),
|
|
name='detail'),
|
|
|
|
and of course, we will add some tests, to check that a ``Poll`` whose
|
|
``pub_date`` is in the past can be displayed, and that one with a ``pub_date``
|
|
in the future is not::
|
|
|
|
class PollIndexDetailTests(TestCase):
|
|
def test_detail_view_with_a_future_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
The detail view of a poll with a pub_date in the future should
|
|
return a 404 not found.
|
|
"""
|
|
future_poll = create_poll(question='Future poll.', days=5)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:detail', args=(future_poll.id,)))
|
|
self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 404)
|
|
|
|
def test_detail_view_with_a_past_poll(self):
|
|
"""
|
|
The detail view of a poll with a pub_date in the past should display
|
|
the poll's question.
|
|
"""
|
|
past_poll = create_poll(question='Past Poll.', days=-5)
|
|
response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:detail', args=(past_poll.id,)))
|
|
self.assertContains(response, past_poll.question, status_code=200)
|
|
|
|
Ideas for more tests
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
We ought to add similar ``queryset`` arguments to the other ``DetailView``
|
|
URLs, and create a new test class for each view. They'll be very similar to
|
|
what we have just created; in fact there will be a lot of repetition.
|
|
|
|
We could also improve our application in other ways, adding tests along the
|
|
way. For example, it's silly that ``Polls`` can be published on the site that
|
|
have no ``Choices``. So, our views could check for this, and exclude such
|
|
``Polls``. Our tests would create a ``Poll`` without ``Choices`` and then test
|
|
that it's not published, as well as create a similar ``Poll`` *with*
|
|
``Choices``, and test that it *is* published.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps logged-in admin users should be allowed to see unpublished ``Polls``,
|
|
but not ordinary visitors. Again: whatever needs to be added to the software to
|
|
accomplish this should be accompanied by a test, whether you write the test
|
|
first and then make the code pass the test, or work out the logic in your code
|
|
first and then write a test to prove it.
|
|
|
|
At a certain point you are bound to look at your tests and wonder whether your
|
|
code is suffering from test bloat, which brings us to:
|
|
|
|
When testing, more is better
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
It might seem that our tests are growing out of control. At this rate there will
|
|
soon be more code in our tests than in our application, and the repetition
|
|
is unaesthetic, compared to the elegant conciseness of the rest of our code.
|
|
|
|
**It doesn't matter**. Let them grow. For the most part, you can write a test
|
|
once and then forget about it. It will continue performing its useful function
|
|
as you continue to develop your program.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes tests will need to be updated. Suppose that we amend our views so that
|
|
only ``Polls`` with ``Choices`` are published. In that case, many of our
|
|
existing tests will fail - *telling us exactly which tests need to be amended to
|
|
bring them up to date*, so to that extent tests help look after themselves.
|
|
|
|
At worst, as you continue developing, you might find that you have some tests
|
|
that are now redundant. Even that's not a problem; in testing redundancy is
|
|
a *good* thing.
|
|
|
|
As long as your tests are sensibly arranged, they won't become unmanageable.
|
|
Good rules-of-thumb include having:
|
|
|
|
* a separate ``TestClass`` for each model or view
|
|
* a separate test method for each set of conditions you want to test
|
|
* test method names that describe their function
|
|
|
|
Further testing
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
This tutorial only introduces some of the basics of testing. There's a great
|
|
deal more you can do, and a number of very useful tools at your disposal to
|
|
achieve some very clever things.
|
|
|
|
For example, while our tests here have covered some of the internal logic of a
|
|
model and the way our views publish information, you can use an "in-browser"
|
|
framework such as Selenium_ to test the way your HTML actually renders in a
|
|
browser. These tools allow you to check not just the behavior of your Django
|
|
code, but also, for example, of your JavaScript. It's quite something to see
|
|
the tests launch a browser, and start interacting with your site, as if a human
|
|
being were driving it! Django includes :class:`~django.test.LiveServerTestCase`
|
|
to facilitate integration with tools like Selenium.
|
|
|
|
If you have a complex application, you may want to run tests automatically
|
|
with every commit for the purposes of `continuous integration`_, so that
|
|
quality control is itself - at least partially - automated.
|
|
|
|
A good way to spot untested parts of your application is to check code
|
|
coverage. This also helps identify fragile or even dead code. If you can't test
|
|
a piece of code, it usually means that code should be refactored or removed.
|
|
Coverage will help to identify dead code. See
|
|
:ref:`topics-testing-code-coverage` for details.
|
|
|
|
:doc:`Testing Django applications </topics/testing/index>` has comprehensive
|
|
information about testing.
|
|
|
|
.. _Selenium: http://seleniumhq.org/
|
|
.. _continuous integration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration
|
|
|
|
What's next?
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
For full details on testing, see :doc:`Testing in Django
|
|
</topics/testing/index>`.
|
|
|
|
When you're comfortable with testing Django views, read
|
|
:doc:`part 6 of this tutorial</intro/tutorial06>` to learn about
|
|
static files management.
|