Opened 7 years ago
Last modified 6 years ago
#29098 new New feature
Add SimpleTestCase.assertRedirectsRegex()
Reported by: | Dan J Strohl | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Testing framework | Version: | 2.1 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | unittest redirect |
Cc: | Dan Davis | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
or, perhaps, allow it to use the patterns from the url's file. Either way, the issue is that I have a view that gets a request, looks at it, and redirects it to a url such as /labs/12345/running, or /labs/4567/start. this is a similar pattern to what is recommended and used in the admin, so I don't think I am doing something weird here, but I may not know what the redirect url will look like before I send the request (if I am sending something like /labs/new, and it returns /labs/12345 for example).
as a hack, I did this:
Code highlighting:
def fix_response_for_test(response, re_pattern, replace, count=0, flags=0): if hasattr(response, 'redirect_chain'): url, status_code = response.redirect_chain[-1] tmp_replaced = re.search(re_pattern, url, flags=flags) new_url = re.sub(re_pattern, replace, url, count=count, flags=flags) # print('redirect - new: %s' % new_url) response.redirect_chain[-1] = (new_url, status_code) else: # Not a followed redirect url = response.url scheme, netloc, path, query, fragment = urlsplit(url) # Prepend the request path to handle relative path redirects. if not path.startswith('/'): url = urljoin(response.request['PATH_INFO'], url) tmp_replaced = re.search(re_pattern, url, flags=flags) new_url = re.sub(re_pattern, replace, url, count=count, flags=flags) # print('no redirected - new: %s' % new_url) response['Location'] = new_url return tmp_replaced.group(0)
and is run like this:
Code highlighting:
session_id = fix_response_for_test(response, UUID_REGEX, '<uuid>') redirect_url = '/lab/<uuid>/error/' with self.subTest('%s - response url' % name): self.assertRedirects(response, redirect_url, fetch_redirect_response=False, msg_prefix=tmp_msg) test_session = Sessions.objects.get(session_id=session_id) # do more testing on the session object to make sure it was created correctly.
The returning the pulled content is nice, but probably not required as I COULD simply build two tests, one to check the redirect, and another to test the actual session object.
If I had my druthers, I would love to see something like:
Code highlighting:
args_obj=None self.assertRedirects(response, r'/labs/(?P<foobar>.+)/(.+)', get_args=args_obj) # assuming this passes the assertion, args_obj then would == # args_obj = { # 'args': ['list of un-named items'], # 'kwargs': {dict of kwargs}
This could also be approached by adding the ability to get this kind of thing directly from the response object, along the lines of:
Code highlighting:
(assuming the request was '/labs/12344/test_page > my_response.seed_url() ' '//labs//(?P<foobar>.+)//(.+)' # which could then be matched in a redirect url match. > my_response.url_params(1) 'test_page' > my_response.url_params('foobar') '12344'
Change History (8)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 7 years ago
comment:2 by , 7 years ago
Replying to Tim Graham:
I'm not really in favor of the additional complexity. In the admin tests, for example, the problem is solved like this:
response = <post request to create new object> new_user = User.objects.get(username='newuser') self.assertRedirects(response, reverse('admin:auth_user_change', args=(new_user.pk,)))Does that work for you?
I understand and am generally in agreement with keeping things simple...
While your suggestion would generally work (I think at least, I haven't tried it), it feels like it would be easier (from the developers pov) to be able to test if a redirect matched a url pattern, or one of the new url matching.. (objects?), in addition to simply matching a string. that way a developer could be as specific (or fuzzy) as they wished. and it would directly link back to checking the url patterns as well.
The ability to pull out the string is nice, but not really crucial to the specific feature request.
I would not put this as a critical feature request, but perhaps a bit more than a "nice to have".
follow-up: 4 comment:3 by , 7 years ago
It sounds like you'd like assertRedirects()
to be able to do the reverse()
itself. I don't see much advantage to that (complicating things by allowing assertRedirects()
to take all the parameters of reverse()
). If I misunderstood, can you clarify what API change you're proposing?
comment:4 by , 7 years ago
Replying to Tim Graham:
It sounds like you'd like
assertRedirects()
to be able to do thereverse()
itself. I don't see much advantage to that (complicating things by allowingassertRedirects()
to take all the parameters ofreverse()
). If I misunderstood, can you clarify what API change you're proposing?
Ummm, not totally, the reverse() expects enough parameters to be able to create the url, I am proposing being able to validate without knowing the specific variables needed to complete the reverse.
basically, at something like the changes below... (all I did was pull out the last assertion lines and put them into their own method.)
Taking this a bit further, you could also pull out the assertion for the response codes and make them into their own assertion (which would be called by the assertRedirects) and/or even put the code to pull the response codes and response url into a helper function (like "get_redirected_url(response, fetch_redirect_response=True)" ) further modularizing it into even simpler pieces, and allowing for more flexibility in usage.
Code highlighting:
def _assertRedirects(self, response, expected_url, status_code=302, target_status_code=200, msg_prefix='', fetch_redirect_response=True): """ Assert that a response redirected to a specific URL and that the redirect URL can be loaded. Won't work for external links since it uses the test client to do a request (use fetch_redirect_response=False to check such links without fetching them). """ if msg_prefix: msg_prefix += ": " if hasattr(response, 'redirect_chain'): # The request was a followed redirect self.assertTrue( len(response.redirect_chain) > 0, msg_prefix + "Response didn't redirect as expected: Response code was %d (expected %d)" % (response.status_code, status_code) ) self.assertEqual( response.redirect_chain[0][1], status_code, msg_prefix + "Initial response didn't redirect as expected: Response code was %d (expected %d)" % (response.redirect_chain[0][1], status_code) ) url, status_code = response.redirect_chain[-1] scheme, netloc, path, query, fragment = urlsplit(url) self.assertEqual( response.status_code, target_status_code, msg_prefix + "Response didn't redirect as expected: Final Response code was %d (expected %d)" % (response.status_code, target_status_code) ) else: # Not a followed redirect self.assertEqual( response.status_code, status_code, msg_prefix + "Response didn't redirect as expected: Response code was %d (expected %d)" % (response.status_code, status_code) ) url = response.url scheme, netloc, path, query, fragment = urlsplit(url) # Prepend the request path to handle relative path redirects. if not path.startswith('/'): url = urljoin(response.request['PATH_INFO'], url) path = urljoin(response.request['PATH_INFO'], path) if fetch_redirect_response: # netloc might be empty, or in cases where Django tests the # HTTP scheme, the convention is for netloc to be 'testserver'. # Trust both as "internal" URLs here. domain, port = split_domain_port(netloc) if domain and not validate_host(domain, settings.ALLOWED_HOSTS): raise ValueError( "The test client is unable to fetch remote URLs (got %s). " "If the host is served by Django, add '%s' to ALLOWED_HOSTS. " "Otherwise, use assertRedirects(..., fetch_redirect_response=False)." % (url, domain) ) redirect_response = response.client.get(path, QueryDict(query), secure=(scheme == 'https')) # Get the redirection page, using the same client that was used # to obtain the original response. self.assertEqual( redirect_response.status_code, target_status_code, msg_prefix + "Couldn't retrieve redirection page '%s': response code was %d (expected %d)" % (path, redirect_response.status_code, target_status_code) ) return url def assertRedirects(self, response, expected_url, status_code=302, target_status_code=200, msg_prefix='', fetch_redirect_response=True): url = self._assertRedirects( response, expected_url, status_code=status_code, target_status_code=target_status_code, msg_prefix=msg_prefix, fetch_redirect_response=fetch_redirect_response) self.assertEqual( url, expected_url, msg_prefix + "Response redirected to '%s', expected '%s'" % (url, expected_url) ) def assertRedirectsRegex(self, response, expected_url_regex, status_code=302, target_status_code=200, msg_prefix='', fetch_redirect_response=True): url = self._assertRedirects( response, expected_url, status_code=status_code, target_status_code=target_status_code, msg_prefix=msg_prefix, fetch_redirect_response=fetch_redirect_response) self.assertRegex( url, expected_url_regex, msg_prefix + "Response redirected to '%s', expected '%s'" % (url, expected_url) )
comment:5 by , 7 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Summary: | Allow assertRedirects to handle regex matches. → Add SimpleTestCase.assertRedirectsRegex() |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | Cleanup/optimization → New feature |
I don't like it, but I suppose it would be consistent with other unittest assertions.
comment:6 by , 6 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
Version: | 1.11 → 2.1 |
I'll take this one. Seems straight-forward enough. Not sure why it should be done on 1.11, because it doesn't seem severe enough.
comment:7 by , 6 years ago
The version field simply reflects when the ticket was reported. All new features target the development branch of Django.
comment:8 by , 6 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Owner: | removed |
Status: | assigned → new |
Someone else can work on this issue if they have time.
I'm not really in favor of the additional complexity. In the admin tests, for example, the problem is solved like this:
Does that work for you?