Unit testing is one of the most valuable habits in modern programming. You build tests into the code you write and run them on every change. A type checker verifies the claims you can write as annotations. Tests verify the rest: that a withdrawal reduces the balance, that the account refuses an overdraft. They state what the code should do, and check it.
Tests give you a safety net. With them you can refactor boldly, change designs, and clean up code. Tests also push back on the design. A function you cannot test easily is usually one that goes looking for the clock, the filesystem, or the network instead of receiving them.
Perhaps more importantly, tests tell you immediately if a change you’ve made causes a failure. Immediate feedback saves an enormous amount of time. If the problem surfaces only after multiple changes, you have no idea which change caused the bug.
When a bug does get through, the patch is only half the job. Start by writing a test that reproduces the bug, and watch it fail. The fix then turns that test green, and the bug cannot return unnoticed. The other half is asking what let the bug through: a case no test covered, a claim no annotation stated, an interface that invites misuse. Put out the fire, and also find what is starting fires. A team that only patches fixes the same kind of bug forever.
Writing the code, getting it working, and intending to write the tests later seems easy. Later rarely comes. Once the code works, the tests feel less important.
One solution is to write the tests before writing the code. When you write the tests first, you:
Testing then becomes a design tool, not a verification step you skip when the code looks right to you.
That said, TDD requires that you know what you are creating. It assumes you are confident the design is correct, so that only implementation remains. Often, however, you are still experimenting to find the direction the program will take. When you are discovering the design rather than producing code, TDD is wasteful.
For example, here is a test for is_palindrome(),
written before that function exists anywhere in the project:
# test_palindrome.py
from palindrome import is_palindrome
def test_empty_string_is_a_palindrome() -> None:
assert is_palindrome("")
def test_racecar_is_a_palindrome() -> None:
assert is_palindrome("racecar")
def test_hello_is_not_a_palindrome() -> None:
assert not is_palindrome("hello")At this point palindrome.py does not
exist, so running this file fails before a single assertion
runs: pytest cannot import a module that is not
there. That failure is the point. It confirms the test would
catch a missing implementation, not just a wrong one. Only now
does the implementation appear, sized to make every case in the
test pass and nothing more:
# palindrome.py
def is_palindrome(s: str) -> bool:
return s == s[::-1]The test written first stayed the same. Only the code changed to satisfy it. That is TDD working as a design tool: the test defined what “done” means before any implementation existed to shape that definition.
Python has a testing framework in the standard library,
unittest, modeled on Java’s JUnit. It works, but it
carries the class-based boilerplate of its heritage. The wider
Python world has settled on pytest, and so does
this book.
pytest rests on two ideas that keep tests short.
A test is just a function whose name starts with
test_. A check is just Python’s built-in
assert statement. No base class needs inheriting,
and no special assertion methods need memorizing.
pytest rewrites assert so that a
failure still shows you both sides of the comparison.
Most of this chapter’s tests check the following
Account class, a @dataclass (Data Classes as
Types explains the decorator):
# account.py
from dataclasses import dataclass
class InsufficientFunds(Exception):
def __init__(self,
balance: float, amount: float) -> None:
super().__init__(
f"balance {balance} is less than {amount}")
@dataclass
class Account:
balance: float = 0.0
def deposit(self, amount: float) -> None:
if amount <= 0:
raise ValueError("deposit must be positive")
self.balance += amount
def withdraw(self, amount: float) -> None:
if amount > self.balance:
raise InsufficientFunds(self.balance, amount)
self.balance -= amount
def add_interest(self, rate: float) -> None:
self.balance += self.balance * rateBy convention, tests live in a file whose name starts with
test_:
# test_account.py
import pytest
from account import Account, InsufficientFunds
def test_new_account_is_empty() -> None:
assert Account().balance == 0.0
def test_deposit_increases_balance() -> None:
account = Account()
account.deposit(100)
assert account.balance == 100
# Make three tests, replacing "bad" with each list value
@pytest.mark.parametrize("bad", [0, -1, -100])
def test_nonpositive_deposit_raises(bad: float) -> None:
with pytest.raises(ValueError):
Account().deposit(bad)
@pytest.fixture
def funded() -> Account:
account = Account()
account.deposit(100)
return account
def test_withdraw_reduces_balance(funded: Account) -> None:
funded.withdraw(40)
assert funded.balance == 60
def test_overdraft_raises(funded: Account) -> None:
with pytest.raises(InsufficientFunds):
funded.withdraw(1000)
def test_interest_uses_approx(funded: Account) -> None:
funded.add_interest(0.05)
assert funded.balance == pytest.approx(105.0)This file previews two features that get their own sections
later in this chapter: the parametrize1 mark runs one test over
several inputs, and the funded fixture builds a
prepared account for each test that names it as a parameter. The
@ lines apply decorators, which Decorators explains;
here they only mark the functions for pytest.
Run the test suite by typing pytest in the
project directory.2
pytest puts each test file’s own directory at the
front of sys.path, so
from account import Account works with no packaging
and no path setup, as long as account.py sits beside test_account.py.
pytest discovers every test_*.py file,
collects every test_ function, runs them, and
reports successes and failures. A failing assert
prints the expression and the actual values, so you rarely need
a debugger to see what went wrong.
pytest -k overdraft runs only the tests whose
names contain “overdraft”, pytest -x stops at the
first failure, and pytest --lf reruns just the
tests that failed last time. Those three cover most of a working
day.
If you change the expected value in
test_deposit_increases_balance() to
10, the report names the line, the expression, and
both sides:
______________ test_deposit_increases_balance ______________
def test_deposit_increases_balance() -> None:
account = Account()
account.deposit(100)
> assert account.balance == 10
E assert 100.0 == 10
E + where 100.0 = Account(balance=100.0).balance
test_account.py:11: AssertionError
The where line is the rewriting at work:
pytest keeps the sub-expression
account.balance and its value, which a bare
assert statement would discard.
Account is a @dataclass, so its
generated __repr__() names the field values. A
hand-written class with no __repr__() would print
<account.Account object at 0x...> there
instead.
test_overdraft_raises() uses
pytest.raises() as a context manager. The test
passes only if the block raises the expected exception.
Keep the with block down to the single call that
should fail. Any statement inside it that raises the expected
type passes the test, including one that fails for an unrelated
reason. match= takes a regular expression that
pytest checks against the exception’s message, so
the test can confirm which failure occurred and not just its
type:
# test_overdraft_message.py
import pytest
from account import Account, InsufficientFunds
def test_overdraft_reports_the_shortfall() -> None:
account = Account(100)
with pytest.raises(InsufficientFunds,
match="less than 250"):
account.withdraw(250)
assert account.balance == 100The assertion after the block belongs outside it: a failed
withdrawal must leave the balance alone, and that check has
nothing to do with the exception. Inside the block it would
never run: the exception from withdraw() skips the
rest of the block, and pytest.raises() then absorbs
it.
Testing floating-point results for exact equality is
unreliable. test_interest_uses_approx() compares
with pytest.approx(), which allows a small
tolerance: a relative difference of 1e-6, unless you pass
rel= or abs=.
That test would pass with == as well.
100.0 + 100.0 * 0.05 is exactly 105.0
on any IEEE double, and so is every other whole-percent rate on
this starting balance. The trouble starts once error
accumulates:
# test_compounding.py
import pytest
from account import Account
def test_interest_compounds() -> None:
account = Account(100)
for _ in range(5):
account.add_interest(0.05)
assert account.balance == pytest.approx(127.62815625)Applying 5% five times produces
127.62815624999999, so the same assertion written
with == against 127.62815625 fails.
Use approx() by default rather than adding it after
a comparison fails: the first test does not need it, and you
cannot tell by looking which tests do.
When the same logic should run against several inputs, do not
copy the test. Mark the test with parametrize, as
test_nonpositive_deposit_raises() does, and
pytest runs it once per case and reports each
separately. That single function becomes three independent
tests, and a failure names the case that failed.
A parametrize mark can carry several names,
followed by a list of tuples, one tuple per case:
# test_balances.py
import pytest
from account import Account
@pytest.mark.parametrize("start, spend, expected", [
(100, 40, 60),
(50, 50, 0),
(200, 1, 199),
])
def test_withdraw_leaves_expected_balance(
start: float, spend: float, expected: float
) -> None:
account = Account(start)
account.withdraw(spend)
assert account.balance == expectedEach tuple supplies all three arguments for one run, so
pytest builds three independent tests. The names in
the string line up, in order, with the values in each tuple.
parametrize is a mark, and three others
turn up in any existing suite. @pytest.mark.skip
and @pytest.mark.skipif leave a test out,
unconditionally or on a condition such as the platform.
@pytest.mark.xfail records a known bug. The test
still runs, and pytest counts its failure as
expected rather than as a new break. The suite stays green, and
the test that proves the bug stays in place.
JUnit-style frameworks give each test class a
setUp() and tearDown().
pytest replaces both with fixtures:
functions that build what a test needs. You declare fixtures as
parameters to a test, and each parameter name tells
pytest to call that fixture and pass its result to
the test.
The funded function in test_account.py is a
fixture. pytest is the only thing that calls it: a
test that calls funded() fails with
Fixture "funded" called directly.
Each test gets its own freshly built funded
account, so tests cannot leak state into each other. If a
fixture needs cleanup, it can yield the value and
run teardown code after the yield. A function
containing yield is a generator. Iterators
covers the mechanism, and this chapter needs only the shape. For
example:
# test_teardown.py
from collections.abc import Iterator
import pytest
from account import Account
@pytest.fixture
def open_account() -> Iterator[Account]:
account = Account()
account.deposit(100)
yield account
account.withdraw(account.balance)
assert account.balance == 0
def test_spend_some(open_account: Account) -> None:
open_account.withdraw(30)
assert open_account.balance == 70Everything before the yield is setup. Everything
after it runs once the test finishes, even if the test fails.
Close files, release locks, or check a final invariant after the
yield. A failing check there surfaces as an error,
not as a test failure: pytest prints
1 passed, 1 error, so read the error to see which
invariant broke.
A fixture marked @pytest.fixture(autouse=True)
runs for every test in its scope without any test naming it.
That suits a fixture whose value is a side effect rather than an
object: resetting a global registry, or installing a
monkeypatch every test needs. Autouse runs the
fixture, and only a parameter delivers its value. If you mark
funded autouse and leave it out of the parameter
list, funded.withdraw(40) raises an
AttributeError: the bare name finds the fixture
object the decorator left behind, not the Account
it returns.
Fixtures eliminate duplicated setup. A test that names
funded states what it needs and nothing about how
to build it.
Any test in conftest.py’s directory,
or below it, can use a fixture defined there, with no import.
Place shared setup in conftest.py.
A directory has one conftest.py, so its
fixtures accumulate in that file. This one holds two, and they
demonstrate different things:
# conftest.py
import pytest
from account import Account
@pytest.fixture(scope="session")
def bank_name() -> str:
return "Crunchy Frog Credit Union"
@pytest.fixture(params=[0.0, 100.0, 1_000_000.0])
def preloaded(request: pytest.FixtureRequest) -> Account:
return Account(request.param)Take bank_name first. pytest builds
the scope="session" fixture once and reuses it, and
that reuse suits expensive resources. The reuse is the risk as
well as the point: every test receives the same object, so one
test that mutates it changes what the next test sees. A session
fixture that returns a mutable object shows the leak
directly:
# test_session_leak.py
import pytest
@pytest.fixture(scope="session")
def shared_cache() -> dict[str, int]:
return {}
def test_first_write(
shared_cache: dict[str, int]
) -> None:
shared_cache["seen"] = 1
assert shared_cache == {"seen": 1}
def test_second_sees_leftover(
shared_cache: dict[str, int]
) -> None:
# The dict test_first_write() left behind,
# not a fresh one.
assert shared_cache == {"seen": 1}Both tests pass, and that is the problem:
test_second_sees_leftover() only passes because
test_first_write() ran first and left its entry
behind. If you swap the two functions’ order in the file,
test_second_sees_leftover() fails, since nothing
has written "seen" yet. Keep session fixtures to
values nothing modifies, like bank_name, or to a
resource with its own reset, and leave anything a test mutates
at the default per-test scope.
preloaded shows the other feature: you can
parametrize a fixture. Every test that requests it runs once for
each parameter value, with request.param holding
the value for that run. pytest rebuilds
preloaded for each parameter, so a test that uses
it automatically runs at every starting balance:
# test_fixtures.py
from account import Account
def test_deposit_on_any_balance(preloaded: Account) -> None:
start = preloaded.balance
preloaded.deposit(1)
assert preloaded.balance == start + 1
def test_bank_name_from_conftest(bank_name: str) -> None:
assert bank_name == "Crunchy Frog Credit Union"Nothing imports either fixture. pytest finds
them in conftest.py and supplies
them by name.
parametrize multiplies the one test it
decorates. A parametrized fixture multiplies every test that
requests it, in this file and every other file that can see the
conftest.py. Use the mark
when the cases belong to one test, and the fixture when the same
variation should sweep across a whole suite.
A white-box test reaches into the internals of the code it checks. A black-box test treats the code as an opaque box and exercises only its public interface, the way a client would.
In a language with access control, the compiler enforces the
difference. Python has no access control, so every attribute is
reachable. A single leading underscore, as in
self._balance, changes nothing at the language
level. Python stores it under that exact name, reachable like
any other attribute. Only convention says, “this is private, do
not rely on it.”
A leading double underscore changes the name Python stores,
though it is still not access control. Python’s compiler
rewrites self.__pin, written inside a class body,
into self._ClassName__pin, a transformation called
name mangling. ty does not model this
rewriting, so its report on the code below disagrees with what
actually runs:
# name_mangling.py
class Vault:
def __init__(self) -> None:
# Single underscore: convention only
self._balance = 0
# Double underscore: gets mangled
self.__pin = "1234"
v = Vault()
print(vars(v))
#: {'_balance': 0, '_Vault__pin': '1234'}
# ty: unresolved attribute "_Vault__pin":
print(v._Vault__pin) # type: ignore
#: 1234vars(v) shows what Python actually stored:
_balance under its own name, and __pin
rewritten to _Vault__pin the moment the class body
compiled. The rewritten name is a real attribute like any other,
so v._Vault__pin reads it successfully. Mangling
exists to stop a subclass from accidentally colliding with a
base class’s private-looking name, not to hide the attribute. In
Python the distinction between white-box and black-box remains
one of discipline, not of compiler enforcement.
That makes black-box testing the sensible default. If you
test the public surface, the methods a caller should use, you
can change the internals without rewriting the tests. The
Account tests are black-box: they read no private
attributes. When you do need a white-box test for a tricky
internal, nothing stops you, but treat each one as a test that
may break when you refactor.
Good tests do not depend on the real filesystem, environment,
random number generation, clock, or network. pytest
includes built-in fixtures for this. tmp_path gives
each test a private temporary directory.
monkeypatch sets and restores environment variables
and attributes, undoing every change when the test ends.
This example reads an environment variable and touches files:
# storage.py
import os
from pathlib import Path
def data_dir() -> Path:
return Path(os.environ.get("APP_DATA", "."))
def save(name: str, value: str) -> None:
(data_dir() / name).write_text(value, encoding="utf-8")
def load(name: str) -> str:
return (data_dir() / name).read_text(encoding="utf-8")The tests point it at a throwaway directory, so they never touch real data and never collide with each other:
# test_storage.py
from pathlib import Path
import pytest
import storage
def test_round_trip(
tmp_path: Path, monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch
) -> None:
monkeypatch.setenv("APP_DATA", str(tmp_path))
storage.save("greeting.txt", "hello")
assert storage.load("greeting.txt") == "hello"
def test_missing_file_raises(
tmp_path: Path, monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch
) -> None:
monkeypatch.setenv("APP_DATA", str(tmp_path))
with pytest.raises(FileNotFoundError):
storage.load("absent.txt")data_dir() reads APP_DATA on every
call, so monkeypatch.setenv() can redirect it. A
module-level
DATA_DIR = Path(os.environ.get("APP_DATA", "."))
would read the variable once, at import time, before any test
body runs, so patching the environment afterward would change
nothing. Reading a setting where you use it, rather than caching
it at import, is most of what makes a module testable.
Code that calls random produces a different
value each run, so a test cannot assert a fixed result:
# dice.py
import random
def roll() -> int:
return random.randint(1, 6)monkeypatch replaces the random call with one
that returns a known value, so the result stays predictable
while the test runs:
# test_dice.py
import dice
import pytest
def test_roll_returns_known_value(
monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch
) -> None:
monkeypatch.setattr(dice.random, "randint",
lambda a, b: 4)
assert dice.roll() == 4import random binds the one module object every
importer shares, so dice.random and
random are the same object and the patch replaces
randint() process-wide. monkeypatch
restores the original when the test ends, and that restoration
makes a process-wide patch safe.
Seeding the generator with random.seed(0) makes
the sequence repeatable, though you must record the values it
produces rather than choose them. Better still, have the code
accept a random.Random instance, so a test passes a
seeded random.Random(0) and needs no patching:
# dice_rng.py
import random
def roll(rng: random.Random) -> int:
return rng.randint(1, 6)# test_dice_rng.py
import random
import dice_rng
def test_roll_with_seeded_rng() -> None:
assert dice_rng.roll(random.Random(0)) == 4The function takes its source of randomness as an argument,
so production code hands it a fresh random.Random()
while the test hands it a seeded one. The randomness is now an
input, not a hidden dependency. The 4 here is what
Random(0) produces first, and its match with the
stubbed value in test_dice.py is a
coincidence: as with any seed, you record the value it gives you
rather than pick one.
Injection is not free. The rng or
now parameter must appear on every function between
the caller and the code that needs it. When that code sits
several calls deep in a real codebase, you widen every signature
along the way, or introduce a context object to carry the
parameter. monkeypatch skips that plumbing: it
patches the name in place, at the cost of a process-wide patch
that stands until teardown restores the name. Choose injection
when the parameter already sits near the boundary. Choose
monkeypatch when threading it through would touch
more code than the test is worth.
Code that reads time.time() gives a different
answer every run:
# stopwatch.py
import time
def elapsed(start: float) -> float:
return time.time() - startmonkeypatch pins it to a fixed value the same
way it did for randint():
# test_stopwatch.py
import time
import pytest
import stopwatch
def test_elapsed(monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch) -> None:
monkeypatch.setattr(time, "time", lambda: 100.0)
assert stopwatch.elapsed(40.0) == 60.0As with randomness, injecting the clock is cleaner still. The
same computation takes now as an argument instead
of going looking for it:
# clock_injected.py
from collections.abc import Callable
def elapsed(start: float,
now: Callable[[], float]) -> float:
return now() - startThe test hands it a fixed value:
# test_clock_injected.py
import clock_injected
def test_elapsed() -> None:
assert clock_injected.elapsed(
40.0, lambda: 100.0) == 60.0Both tests check the same arithmetic. The injected one runs
with no monkeypatch, and its signature says where
the time comes from.
datetime.now() is harder to patch:
datetime is an immutable C type that rejects
attribute assignment. That makes the injection approach worth
the small effort.
If you cannot change the code, the library time-machine
freezes every source of wall-clock time at once, including
datetime.now(), with no monkeypatching on your
part:
# event.py
from datetime import datetime
def current_year() -> int:
return datetime.now().year# test_event.py
from datetime import datetime
import event
import time_machine
@time_machine.travel("2030-06-15", tick=False)
def test_current_year_is_frozen() -> None:
assert event.current_year() == 2030
# tick=False: successive readings are identical
assert datetime.now() == datetime.now()travel sets the clock to the given moment for
the test, and tick=False holds it there so every
reading is identical, as the test’s second assertion shows.
time.monotonic() and
time.perf_counter() keep running, because they
measure elapsed intervals rather than dates. Unlike
monkeypatch, time-machine is a
third-party dependency, but it is the standard answer for code
built around datetime.
A test must never use a real network. The call is slow, it
fails whenever the service or the connection does, and it ties
the test to data you do not control. monkeypatch
replaces the function that fetches data with one that returns a
canned response, so the test runs offline and gives the same
answer every time. Here a function reads a URL:
# weather.py
from urllib.request import urlopen
def current_temp(city: str) -> str:
with urlopen(f"https://example.com/{city}") as response:
return response.read().decode()The test swaps urlopen() for a stub that returns
bytes from memory, so no request leaves the machine:
# test_weather.py
import io
import pytest
import weather
def test_current_temp(
monkeypatch: pytest.MonkeyPatch
) -> None:
def fake_urlopen(url: str) -> io.BytesIO:
return io.BytesIO(b"21C")
monkeypatch.setattr(weather, "urlopen", fake_urlopen)
assert weather.current_temp("denver") == "21C"weather imports the function with
from urllib.request import urlopen, and that
statement binds urlopen in weather’s
own namespace, so weather.urlopen is the name the
call site reads and the name to patch. Patching
urllib.request.urlopen instead would leave
weather’s copy untouched. One rule covers both
import forms: patch the name the calling code looks up. The same
approach isolates a database, a message queue, or any other
service. Replace the boundary function with a stand-in and
assert against its result.
A stand-in like fake_urlopen() is a
stub: it answers with a canned value and records
nothing. The standard library’s unittest.mock
builds stubs for you, along with mocks that also record
the calls they receive, and it turns up in most existing code. A
Mock goes further than a stub: it remembers every
call it received, so a test can check the call itself, not just
what it returned.
# notifier.py
from collections.abc import Callable
def notify_low_balance(
balance: float,
send: Callable[[str], None],
) -> None:
if balance < 0:
send(f"balance is negative: {balance}")# test_notifier.py
from unittest.mock import Mock
import notifier
def test_negative_balance_sends_message() -> None:
send = Mock()
notifier.notify_low_balance(-5, send)
send.assert_called_once_with(
"balance is negative: -5")Mock() accepts any call and returns another
Mock unless told otherwise, recording every call as
it goes. assert_called_once_with() checks two
things at once: that send ran exactly once, and
that it ran with this exact argument. A plain stub cannot make
that check. fake_urlopen() has no memory of how it
was called. This book patches with monkeypatch and
prefers injection where you can change the code, because a
function that takes its clock or its fetcher as an argument
needs no patching library.
The tests in this chapter check specific examples: this input produces that output. A property-based test instead states a law the code must always obey, and lets a tool generate the inputs that try to break it. Confidence shows the technique, including the Hypothesis library that automates it.
You can now take an untested function and make it testable.
Name what it depends on: the clock, randomness, the filesystem,
the environment, the network. Replace those at the boundary, by
injection where you can change the code and with
monkeypatch where you cannot. Then pin the
remaining behavior with a handful of parametrized cases. The
work is mostly in the first step, since a function that is hard
to test is usually one that goes looking for something no caller
handed it.
To find out what you have not tested, run the suite under
coverage.py, which the pytest-cov
plugin wires up when you pass --cov. Read the
result as a list of lines nothing exercised, not as a score: a
line a test happened to execute is not the same as a line a test
checks.
transfer(other: Account, amount: float)
method to Account and write its tests first: a
successful transfer, and an overdraft that leaves both accounts
unchanged.parametrize to test
add_interest() at several rates, comparing with
pytest.approx().yields an
Account and asserts, after the yield,
that the balance is never negative. Use it in two tests.settings_path(), which returns
Path(os.environ["APP_CONFIG"]) / "settings.ini",
and test it with monkeypatch and
tmp_path. Then rewrite the function to take the
directory as an argument and test it again. Which test would
survive a change to the environment variable’s name?weather.current_temp() calls
urlopen(). Write a second function that takes a
fetcher as an argument instead, and test both: one with
monkeypatch, one with a plain function passed in.
Then rename weather.urlopen to
weather.fetch and see which test still passes.