Skip to content

Changes to validate_docstring script to be able to check all docstrings at once #22408

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

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Oct 13, 2018
Merged

Changes to validate_docstring script to be able to check all docstrings at once #22408

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b31fc10
Main refactoring of validate_docstrings scripts, so it can be execute…
datapythonista Aug 18, 2018
5d2815f
Fixing errors with introspection
datapythonista Aug 18, 2018
5bb7b9b
Adapting tests to the new format
datapythonista Aug 18, 2018
86327d4
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into validate_all_docs…
datapythonista Aug 20, 2018
188f4a3
Addressing comments from the code review
datapythonista Aug 20, 2018
0d25298
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into validate_all_docs…
datapythonista Aug 21, 2018
577308e
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into validate_all_docs…
datapythonista Sep 1, 2018
156b997
Merging from master
datapythonista Sep 28, 2018
3a5e7fd
Fixing pep8
datapythonista Sep 28, 2018
1a8aee9
Merge branch 'validate_all_docstrings' of github.com:datapythonista/p…
datapythonista Sep 29, 2018
aa4807a
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into validate_all_docs…
datapythonista Sep 29, 2018
1d2c5c0
Adding tests to the function that parses api.rst
datapythonista Sep 29, 2018
db782fd
Addressing comments from review
datapythonista Oct 8, 2018
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
21 changes: 10 additions & 11 deletions pandas/tests/scripts/test_validate_docstrings.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -490,25 +490,25 @@ def _import_path(self, klass=None, func=None):
return base_path

def test_good_class(self):
assert validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
klass='GoodDocStrings')) == 0
assert len(validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For PEP8 can just use implicit truthiness of empty list, so just not ...['errors'] instead of len(...['errors']) == 0. Applicable to other tests below

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In general that is true, however in this case I think it is good to test it is actually a zero-length list and not something else Falsey?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

based on both comments, I'll change as @WillAyd suggests, and will also assert that the result is a list.

klass='GoodDocStrings'))['errors']) == 0

@pytest.mark.parametrize("func", [
'plot', 'sample', 'random_letters', 'sample_values', 'head', 'head1',
'contains'])
def test_good_functions(self, func):
assert validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
klass='GoodDocStrings', func=func)) == 0
assert len(validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
klass='GoodDocStrings', func=func))['errors']) == 0

def test_bad_class(self):
assert validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
klass='BadGenericDocStrings')) > 0
assert len(validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa: F821
klass='BadGenericDocStrings'))['errors']) > 0

@pytest.mark.parametrize("func", [
'func', 'astype', 'astype1', 'astype2', 'astype3', 'plot', 'method'])
def test_bad_generic_functions(self, func):
assert validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa:F821
klass='BadGenericDocStrings', func=func)) > 0
assert len(validate_one(self._import_path( # noqa:F821
klass='BadGenericDocStrings', func=func))['errors']) > 0

@pytest.mark.parametrize("klass,func,msgs", [
# Summary tests
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -546,7 +546,6 @@ def test_bad_generic_functions(self, func):
marks=pytest.mark.xfail)
])
def test_bad_examples(self, capsys, klass, func, msgs):
validate_one(self._import_path(klass=klass, func=func)) # noqa:F821
err = capsys.readouterr().err
res = validate_one(self._import_path(klass=klass, func=func)) # noqa:F821
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For consistency let's use result instead of res

for msg in msgs:
assert msg in err
assert msg in ''.join(res['errors'])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we need to join as a string here or can we just check for inclusion in the list?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I'm not wrong, the messages we're checking are no the whole error message, but part of it. So, this is equivalent to something like:

assert 'error in summary' in ''.join(['there is a error in summary for this doc', 'some other error'])

I think it makes more sense to use the join, as the error message will be clearer if this fails. Compared to checking all in a comprehension and them doing an any (which I guess will just say False is not True).

Loading