Bump androidtv to 0.0.26 and update tests

[JeffLIrion]

Description:

Update the androidtv tests to use pytest instead of unittest.

Checklist:

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• Local tests pass with tox. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
• There is no commented out code in this PR.
• I have followed the development checklist

If the code communicates with devices, web services, or third-party tools:

• The manifest file has all fields filled out correctly. Update and include derived files by running python3 -m script.hassfest.
• New or updated dependencies have been added to requirements_all.txt by running python3 -m script.gen_requirements_all.

If the code does not interact with devices:

• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

[JeffLIrion]

@MartinHjelmare you said (source):

New tests must be standalone pytest test functions instead of unittest class method tests.

Is there an easy way to capture logging statements using pytest? If not, would I be able to use unittest.TestCase.assertLogs? Update: I got this working using caplog.

Also, to check whether a device is available, do I simply check that hass.states.get(entity_id).state != STATE_UNAVAILABLE?

[MartinHjelmare]

Yes, but we need to also check that the state is not None.

[JeffLIrion]

Yes, but we need to also check that the state is not None.

How do I check that? Won't it always be true that hass.states.get(entity_id).state is not None?

assert hass.states.get(entity_id).state == STATE_UNAVAILABLE  # this passes
assert hass.states.get(entity_id).state is None               # this fails

[MartinHjelmare]

I was thinking something like this, without looking at further context:

state = hass.states.get(entity_id)
assert state is not None
assert state.state != STATE_UNAVAILABLE

[JeffLIrion]

I was thinking something like this, without looking at further context:

state = hass.states.get(entity_id)
assert state is not None
assert state.state != STATE_UNAVAILABLE

I could add that if you'd like, but as it is the test would fail if state is None because trying to access state.state would cause an exception.

[MartinHjelmare]

Tests shouldn't fail cause we cause an exception in the test. They should fail cause the code under test doesn't behave as asserted in the tests.

[JeffLIrion]

Tests shouldn't fail cause we cause an exception in the test. They should fail cause the code under test doesn't behave as asserted in the tests.

OK, I updated the tests so that they always make sure the state object is not None. This is ready for review!

[JeffLIrion]

This name is necessary because it needs to match the name in the adb.adb_commands.AdbCommands class. Same goes for the other names below.

[MartinHjelmare]

Another approach would be to spec / autospec a Mock with the correct library class and then set side effects as needed on the mock methods. The benefit with that is that it will raise or fail tests if the library changes and we don't update accordingly.

[JeffLIrion]

That makes sense, but I don't know how to do that.

As it is, I structured the androidtv package so that all ADB stuff is handled in adb_manager.py. In these tests, I'm patching two classes in this module that are imported from two ADB-related packages. If those packages changed, I would need to either update the androidtv package or pin its requirements. But for now, androidtv's requirements are actually my forks of those two ADB-related packages with necessary modifications, and unless/until that changes then I can guarantee that these tests won't break.

[MartinHjelmare]

This explains more about autospeccing:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.mock.html#auto-speccing

[MartinHjelmare]

I think this is ok, but another approach that I would prefer, is to try to extract the set up and patching code into pytest fixtures and keep the assertions in the main test functions. It's easier to follow what each test should do, that way.

[JeffLIrion]

I'm not familiar with pytest fixtures.

Also, it's basically the same two tests repeated four times each (Python ADB vs. ADB server, Android TV device vs. Fire TV device). I thought it was more clear to use those hidden helper functions than to have four nearly identical tests.

If the tests pass for one of those four configurations then they should pass for the other three, but I thought it better to test it and be sure than to assume.

[MartinHjelmare]

Pytest fixtures are awesome:
https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/fixture.html

[MartinHjelmare]

Let me know if you're ready to merge.

[JeffLIrion]

Let me know if you're ready to merge.

I replied to two of your comments. If my responses were satisfactory, then go ahead and merge.

And thanks for reviewing!