Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

add some doctest to test #22287

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 26, 2017
Merged

add some doctest to test #22287

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
59d2bb3
fix spurious newlines in Base.Test printing
fredrikekre Jun 24, 2017
a478a0a
add some doctest to test
KristofferC Jun 8, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions base/test.jl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ struct Pass <: Result
value
end
function Base.show(io::IO, t::Pass)
print_with_color(:green, io, "Test Passed\n"; bold = true)
print_with_color(:green, io, "Test Passed"; bold = true)
if !(t.orig_expr === nothing)
print(io, " Expression: ", t.orig_expr)
print(io, "\n Expression: ", t.orig_expr)
end
if t.test_type == :test_throws
# The correct type of exception was thrown
Expand Down
66 changes: 35 additions & 31 deletions doc/src/stdlib/test.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
# Unit Testing

```@meta
DocTestSetup = quote
using Base.Test
end
```

## Testing Base Julia

Julia is under rapid development and has an extensive test suite to verify functionality across
Expand All @@ -26,7 +32,7 @@ Base.Test.@test_throws

For example, suppose we want to check our new function `foo(x)` works as expected:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> using Base.Test

julia> foo(x) = length(x)^2
Expand All @@ -35,28 +41,22 @@ foo (generic function with 1 method)

If the condition is true, a `Pass` is returned:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> @test foo("bar") == 9
Test Passed
Expression: foo("bar") == 9
Evaluated: 9 == 9

julia> @test foo("fizz") >= 10
Test Passed
Expression: foo("fizz") >= 10
Evaluated: 16 >= 10
```

If the condition is false, then a `Fail` is returned and an exception is thrown:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> @test foo("f") == 20
Test Failed
Expression: foo("f") == 20
Evaluated: 1 == 20
ERROR: There was an error during testing
in record at test.jl:268
in do_test at test.jl:191
```

If the condition could not be evaluated because an exception was thrown, which occurs in this
Expand All @@ -68,23 +68,24 @@ julia> @test foo(:cat) == 1
Error During Test
Test threw an exception of type MethodError
Expression: foo(:cat) == 1
MethodError: `length` has no method matching length(::Symbol)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should this block go in the same jldoctest set?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No because the stacktrace is very weird from how Documenter evaluates things in its own module.

in foo at none:1
in anonymous at test.jl:159
in do_test at test.jl:180
MethodError: no method matching length(::Symbol)
Closest candidates are:
length(::SimpleVector) at essentials.jl:256
length(::Base.MethodList) at reflection.jl:521
length(::MethodTable) at reflection.jl:597
...
Stacktrace:
[...]
ERROR: There was an error during testing
in record at test.jl:268
in do_test at test.jl:191
```

If we expect that evaluating an expression *should* throw an exception, then we can use `@test_throws()`
to check that this occurs:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> @test_throws MethodError foo(:cat)
Test Passed
Expression: foo(:cat)
Evaluated: MethodError
Thrown: MethodError
```

## Working with Test Sets
Expand All @@ -104,19 +105,19 @@ Base.Test.@testset

We can put our tests for the `foo(x)` function in a test set:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> @testset "Foo Tests" begin
@test foo("a") == 1
@test foo("ab") == 4
@test foo("abc") == 9
end
end;
Test Summary: | Pass Total
Foo Tests | 3 3
```

Test sets can also be nested:

```julia-repl
```jldoctest testfoo
julia> @testset "Foo Tests" begin
@testset "Animals" begin
@test foo("cat") == 9
Expand All @@ -126,7 +127,7 @@ julia> @testset "Foo Tests" begin
@test foo(zeros(i)) == i^2
@test foo(ones(i)) == i^2
end
end
end;
Test Summary: | Pass Total
Foo Tests | 8 8
```
Expand All @@ -153,14 +154,13 @@ julia> @testset "Foo Tests" begin
Arrays: Test Failed
Expression: foo(ones(4)) == 15
Evaluated: 16 == 15
in record at test.jl:297
in do_test at test.jl:191
Stacktrace:
[...]
Test Summary: | Pass Fail Total
Foo Tests | 3 1 4
Animals | 2 2
Arrays | 1 1 2
ERROR: Some tests did not pass: 3 passed, 1 failed, 0 errored, 0 broken.
in finish at test.jl:362
```

## Other Test Macros
Expand All @@ -169,15 +169,15 @@ As calculations on floating-point values can be imprecise, you can perform appro
checks using either `@test a ≈ b` (where `≈`, typed via tab completion of `\approx`, is the
[`isapprox()`](@ref) function) or use [`isapprox()`](@ref) directly.

```julia-repl
```jldoctest
julia> @test 1 ≈ 0.999999999
Test Passed

julia> @test 1 ≈ 0.999999
ERROR: test failed: 1 isapprox 0.999999
in expression: 1 ≈ 0.999999
in error at error.jl:21
in default_handler at test.jl:30
in do_test at test.jl:53
Test Failed
Expression: 1 ≈ 0.999999
Evaluated: 1 ≈ 0.999999
ERROR: There was an error during testing
```

```@docs
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -264,3 +264,7 @@ And using that testset looks like:
end
end
```

```@meta
DocTestSetup = nothing
```