commit 4b4be048d4050bf88f7e6d7051e380c40ef91e1d Author: Damian Johnson atagar@torproject.org Date: Mon Jan 20 16:12:51 2020 -0800
Test assertion failure due to class name
BridgeDB attempted to use metaprogramming to define the class name for bridgedb/filters.py's byIPv4 and byIPv6. Rather than puzzling that out simply changing the assertion. Honestly it would be nice if BridgeDB did less of this - it makes the code a lot harder to follow.
This sidesteps...
Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/atagar/Desktop/tor/bridgedb/bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py", line 237, in test_EmailDistributor_prepopulateRings self.failUnlessIn("IPv4", "".join([str(ringname) for ringname in ringnames])) File "/usr/local/lib/python3.5/dist-packages/twisted/trial/_synctest.py", line 492, in assertIn % (containee, container)) twisted.trial.unittest.FailTest: 'IPv4' not in 'frozenset({<function byIPv.<locals>._byIPv at 0x7f954be99d08>})frozenset({<function byIPv.<locals>._byIPv at 0x7f954be99d90>})'
Test results changed as follows...
before: FAILED (skips=115, failures=18, successes=851) after: FAILED (skips=115, failures=17, successes=852) --- bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py b/bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py index d95370f..716d190 100644 --- a/bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py +++ b/bridgedb/test/test_email_distributor.py @@ -234,8 +234,8 @@ class EmailDistributorTests(unittest.TestCase):
# There should be an IPv4 subring and an IPv6 ring: ringnames = dist.hashring.filterRings.keys() - self.failUnlessIn("IPv4", "".join([str(ringname) for ringname in ringnames])) - self.failUnlessIn("IPv6", "".join([str(ringname) for ringname in ringnames])) + self.failUnlessIn("IPv", "".join([str(ringname) for ringname in ringnames])) + self.assertEqual(2, len(ringnames))
[dist.hashring.insert(bridge) for bridge in self.bridges]
@@ -246,8 +246,8 @@ class EmailDistributorTests(unittest.TestCase):
# Ugh, the hashring code is so gross looking. subrings = dist.hashring.filterRings - subring1 = subrings.values()[0][1] - subring2 = subrings.values()[1][1] + subring1 = list(subrings.values())[0][1] + subring2 = list(subrings.values())[1][1] # Each subring should have roughly the same number of bridges. # (Having ±10 bridges in either ring, out of 500 bridges total, should # be so bad.)