bpo-37955: mock.patch incorrect reference to Mock #15521
Conversation
|
Hello, and thanks for your contribution! I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA). Our records indicate we have not received your CLA. For legal reasons we need you to sign this before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue. If you have recently signed the CLA, please wait at least one business day You can check yourself to see if the CLA has been received. Thanks again for your contribution, we look forward to reviewing it! |
|
Changing the hyperlink to |
mock.patch mentions that keyword arguments are passed to Mock when it passes to MagicMock by default. This PR fixes that.
phsilva
force-pushed
the
bpo-37955-incorrect-reference-in-mock-patch-doc
branch
from
6c0f647 to
6578726
Compare
The issue on #13681 seems important, the return value on those functions is mostly undocumented right now (since 3.8 changes). Maybe we should stop mentioning what the actual return type is and say it is whatever is on new_callable and at new_callable we can mention that it depends based on async or not. |
This patch adds information about possible use of a AsyncMock when passing arbitrary arguments to mock.patch.
|
Latest patch adjust the text to account the suggestions. Appreciate any reviews. |
Lib/unittest/mock.py
Outdated
| @@ -1651,7 +1651,8 @@ def patch( | |||
| "as"; very useful if `patch` is creating a mock object for you. | |||
|
|
|||
| `patch` takes arbitrary keyword arguments. These will be passed to | |||
| the `Mock` (or `new_callable`) on construction. | |||
| to construct a `AsyncMock` if the patched object is an async function, | |||
| to `MagicMock` otherwise or to `new_callable` if specified. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any way we could not have this text duplicated between mock.py and mock.rst?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am new to Python docs, but as far as I looked around there is a lot of duplication between .rst and .py in many modules, will need to ask around about if there is another way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes this a more substantial PR, but Sphinx autodoc should be able to pull in the .py's docstrings. Not sure if autodoc is enabled for the CPython docs, that would be some more digging on your part :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will take a look into it, but it looks like all modules actually repeats docs in Doc and in Lib, will ask around why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How did the asking around go?
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again. |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @cjw296: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
|
I have made the requested changes; please review again. |
|
Thanks for making the requested changes! @cjw296: please review the changes made to this pull request. |
|
@csabella: waiting for a response to #15521 (comment) |
|
Thanks! |
mock.patch mentions that keyword arguments are passed
to Mock when it passes to MagicMock by default.
This PR fixes that.
https://bugs.python.org/issue37955