Getting Python's unittest results in a tearDown() method
Is it possible to get the results of a test (i.e. whether all assertions have passed) in a tearDown() method? I'm running Selenium scripts, and I'd like to do some reporting from inside tearDown(), however I don't know if this is possible.
This solution works for Python versions 2.7 to 3.9 (the highest current version), without any decorators or other modification in any code before tearDown
. Everything works according to the built-in classification of results. Skipped tests or expectedFailure
are also recognized correctly. It evaluates the result of the current test, not a summary of all tests passed so far. Compatible also with pytest.
import unittest
class MyTest(unittest.TestCase):
def tearDown(self):
if hasattr(self, '_outcome'): # Python 3.4+
result = self.defaultTestResult() # These two methods have no side effects
self._feedErrorsToResult(result, self._outcome.errors)
else: # Python 3.2 - 3.3 or 3.0 - 3.1 and 2.7
result = getattr(self, '_outcomeForDoCleanups', self._resultForDoCleanups)
error = self.list2reason(result.errors)
failure = self.list2reason(result.failures)
ok = not error and not failure
# Demo: report short info immediately (not important)
if not ok:
typ, text = ('ERROR', error) if error else ('FAIL', failure)
msg = [x for x in text.split('\n')[1:] if not x.startswith(' ')][0]
print("\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)
Comments: Only one or zero exceptions (error or failure) need be reported, because not more can be expected before tearDown
. The package unittest
expects that a second exception can be raised by tearDown. Therefore the lists errors
and failures
can contain only one or zero elements together before tearDown. Lines after "demo" comment are reporting a short result.
Demo output: (not important)
$ python3.5 -m unittest test
EF.
ERROR: test.MyTest.test_error
ZeroDivisionError: division by zero
FAIL: test.MyTest.test_fail
AssertionError: 2 != 1
==========================================================
... skipped usual output from unittest with tracebacks ...
...
Ran 3 tests in 0.002s
FAILED (failures=1, errors=1)
Comparison to other solutions - (with respect to the commit history of the Python source repository):
-
This solution uses a private attribute of TestCase instance like many other solutions, but I checked carefully all relevant commits in the Python source repository that three alternative names cover the code history since Python 2.7 to 3.6.2 without any gap. It can be a problem after some new major Python release, but it could be clearly recognized, skipped and easily fixed later for a new Python. An advantage is that nothing is modified before running tearDown, it should never break the test and all functionality of unittest is supported, works with pytest and it could work many extending packages, but not with nosetest (not a suprise becase nosetest is not compatible e.g. with unittest.expectedFailure).
-
The solutions with decorators on the user test methods or with a customized failureException (mgilson, Pavel Repin 2nd way, kenorb) are robust against future Python versions, but if everything should work completely, they would grow like a snow ball with more supported exceptions and more replicated internals of unittest. The decorated functions have less readable tracebacks (even more levels added by one decorator), they are more complicated for debugging and it is unpleasant if another more important decorator has a problem. (Thanks to mgilson the basic functionality is ready and known issues can be fixed.)
-
The solution with a modified
run
method and catchedresult
parameter- (scoffey) should work
also for Python 2.6. The interpretation of results can be improved to
requirements of the question, but nothing can work in Python 3.4+,
because
result
is updated after tearDown call, never before.
- (scoffey) should work
also for Python 2.6. The interpretation of results can be improved to
requirements of the question, but nothing can work in Python 3.4+,
because
-
Mark G.: (tested with Python 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and with nosetest)
-
solution by
exc_info()
(Pavel Repin's second way) works only with Python 2. -
Other solutions are principally similar, but less complete or with more disadvantages.
Explained by Python source repository = Lib/unittest/case.py = Python v 2.7 - 3.3
class TestCase(object):
...
def run(self, result=None):
...
self._outcomeForDoCleanups = result # Python 3.2, 3.3
# self._resultForDoCleanups = result # Python 2.7
# # Python 2.6 - no result saved
...
try:
testMethod()
except... # Many times for different exception classes
result.add...(self, sys.exc_info()) # _addSkip, addError, addFailure
...
try:
self.tearDown()
...
Python v. 3.4 - 3.6
def run(self, result=None):
...
# The outcome is a context manager to catch and collect different exceptions
self._outcome = outcome
...
with outcome...(self):
testMethod()
...
with outcome...(self):
self.tearDown()
...
self._feedErrorsToResult(result, outcome.errors)
Note (by reading Python commit messages): A reason why test results are so much decoupled from tests is memory leaks prevention. Every exception information can access to frames of the failed process state, including all local variables. If a frame is assigned to a local variable in a code block that could also fail, then a cross memory reference could be easily created.
It is not terrible, thanks to the garbage collector, but the free memory can become fragmented more quickly than if the memory would be released correctly. This is a reason why exception information and traceback are converted very soon to strings and why temporary objects like self._outcome
are encapsulated and are set to None in a finally
block in order to memory leaks are prevented.
If you take a look at the implementation of unittest.TestCase.run
, you can see that all test results are collected in the result object (typically a unittest.TestResult
instance) passed as argument. No result status is left in the unittest.TestCase
object.
So there isn't much you can do in the unittest.TestCase.tearDown
method unless you mercilessly break the elegant decoupling of test cases and test results with something like this:
import unittest
class MyTest(unittest.TestCase):
currentResult = None # Holds last result object passed to run method
def setUp(self):
pass
def tearDown(self):
ok = self.currentResult.wasSuccessful()
errors = self.currentResult.errors
failures = self.currentResult.failures
print ' All tests passed so far!' if ok else \
' %d errors and %d failures so far' % \
(len(errors), len(failures))
def run(self, result=None):
self.currentResult = result # Remember result for use in tearDown
unittest.TestCase.run(self, result) # call superclass run method
def test_onePlusOneEqualsTwo(self):
self.assertTrue(1 + 1 == 2) # Succeeds
def test_onePlusOneEqualsThree(self):
self.assertTrue(1 + 1 == 3) # Fails
def test_onePlusNoneIsNone(self):
self.assertTrue(1 + None is None) # Raises TypeError
if __name__ == '__main__':
unittest.main()
This works for Python 2.6 - 3.3 (modified for new Python below).
CAVEAT: I have no way of double checking the following theory at the moment, being away from a dev box. So this may be a shot in the dark.
Perhaps you could check the return value of sys.exc_info()
inside your tearDown() method, if it returns (None, None, None)
, you know the test case succeeded. Otherwise, you could use returned tuple to interrogate the exception object.
See sys.exc_info documentation.
Another more explicit approach is to write a method decorator that you could slap onto all your test case methods that require this special handling. This decorator can intercept assertion exceptions and based on that modify some state in self
allowing your tearDown method to learn what's up.
@assertion_tracker
def test_foo(self):
# some test logic