-
-
Save hynekcer/1b0a260ef72dae05fe9611904d7b9675 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
"""Getting Python's unittest results in a tearDown() method | |
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4414234/getting-pythons-unittest-results-in-a-teardown-method#39606065 | |
""" | |
import unittest | |
class MyTest(unittest.TestCase): | |
def tearDown(self): | |
if hasattr(self._outcome, 'errors'): | |
# Python 3.4 - 3.10 (These two methods have no side effects) | |
result = self.defaultTestResult() | |
self._feedErrorsToResult(result, self._outcome.errors) | |
else: | |
# Python 3.11+ | |
result = self._outcome.result | |
ok = all(test != self for test, text in result.errors + result.failures) | |
# Demo output: (print short info immediately - not important) | |
if ok: | |
print('\nOK: %s' % (self.id(),)) | |
for typ, errors in (('ERROR', result.errors), ('FAIL', result.failures)): | |
for test, text in errors: | |
if test is self: | |
# the full traceback is in the variable `text` | |
msg = [x for x in text.split('\n')[1:] | |
if not x.startswith(' ')][0] | |
print("\n\n%s: %s\n %s" % (typ, self.id(), msg)) | |
def list2reason(self, exc_list): | |
if exc_list and exc_list[-1][0] is self: | |
return exc_list[-1][1] | |
# demo tests | |
def test_success(self): | |
self.assertEqual(1, 1) | |
def test_fail(self): | |
self.assertEqual(2, 1) | |
def test_error(self): | |
self.assertEqual(1 / 0, 1) | |
@unittest.expectedFailure | |
def test_expected_fail(self): | |
self.assertEqual(2, 1) | |
@unittest.expectedFailure | |
def test_expected_error(self): | |
self.assertEqual(1 / 0, 1) | |
@unittest.expectedFailure | |
def test_unexpected_success(self): | |
self.assertEqual(1, 1) |
Note that the Python 3.11 approach doesn't work if the tests are run with pytest and the pytest developers have no no intention of making it work, since the _Outcome is a private attribute. The 3.4 to 3.10 code works fine when pytest is used to run unittest based tests.
Why do you need this trickery when using pytest as a runner ? pytest offer much better alternatives to this hack
Why do you need this trickery when using pytest as a runner ? pytest offer much better alternatives to this hack
We don't need it, but with Python 3.4-3.10 the original hack works the same both with and without using pytest.
In this way, the results of pass, fail, and error can be obtained, but it is impossible to know whether the use case is skipped. is there any way to know
You can see the comments that one branch is used by Python <= 3.10 and the other by Python >= 3.11.
The used branch works and the other is invalid. You probably evaluate it only in Python <= 3.10 but you should also try it in Python >= 3.11 to can verify the code.
It works also with pytest 7.4.4 or 8.2.2 (your versions) if Python is <= 3.10.x
The package "pytest " is so different from "unittest" that I don't have the energy to start reverse engineering to fix it for fun for Python >= 3.11.
Thanks! Work perfectly for me 😄
Python 3.11.9
Note that the Python 3.11 approach doesn't work if the tests are run with pytest and the pytest developers have no no intention of making it work, since the _Outcome is a private attribute. The 3.4 to 3.10 code works fine when pytest is used to run unittest based tests.