mirror of
				https://github.com/django/django.git
				synced 2025-11-03 21:25:09 +00:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			648 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			26 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			648 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			26 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Text
		
	
	
	
	
	
=====================================
 | 
						|
Writing your first Django app, part 5
 | 
						|
=====================================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
This tutorial begins where :doc:`Tutorial 4 </intro/tutorial04>` left off.
 | 
						|
We've built a Web-poll application, and we'll now create some automated tests
 | 
						|
for it.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Introducing automated testing
 | 
						|
=============================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What are automated tests?
 | 
						|
-------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests are simple routines that check the operation of your code.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Testing operates at different levels. Some tests might apply to a tiny detail
 | 
						|
- *does a particular model method return values as expected?*, while others
 | 
						|
examine the overall operation of the software - *does a sequence of user inputs
 | 
						|
on the site produce the desired result?* That's no different from the kind of
 | 
						|
testing you did earlier in :doc:`Tutorial 1 </intro/tutorial01>`, using the
 | 
						|
shell to examine the behavior of a method, or running the application and
 | 
						|
entering data to check how it behaves.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What's different in *automated* tests is that the testing work is done for
 | 
						|
you by the system. You create a set of tests once, and then as you make changes
 | 
						|
to your app, you can check that your code still works as you originally
 | 
						|
intended, without having to perform time consuming manual testing.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Why you need to create tests
 | 
						|
----------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
So why create tests, and why now?
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
You may feel that you have quite enough on your plate just learning
 | 
						|
Python/Django, and having yet another thing to learn and do may seem
 | 
						|
overwhelming and perhaps unnecessary. After all, our polls application is
 | 
						|
working quite happily now; going through the trouble of creating automated
 | 
						|
tests is not going to make it work any better. If creating the polls
 | 
						|
application is the last bit of Django programming you will ever do, then true,
 | 
						|
you don't need to know how to create automated tests. But, if that's not the
 | 
						|
case, now is an excellent time to learn.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests will save you time
 | 
						|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Up to a certain point, 'checking that it seems to work' will be a satisfactory
 | 
						|
test. In a more sophisticated application, you might have dozens of complex
 | 
						|
interactions between components.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A change in any of those components could have unexpected consequences on the
 | 
						|
application's behavior. Checking that it still 'seems to work' could mean
 | 
						|
running through your code's functionality with twenty different variations of
 | 
						|
your test data just to make sure you haven't broken something - not a good use
 | 
						|
of your time.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
That's especially true when automated tests could do this for you in seconds.
 | 
						|
If something's gone wrong, tests will also assist in identifying the code
 | 
						|
that's causing the unexpected behavior.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Sometimes it may seem a chore to tear yourself away from your productive,
 | 
						|
creative programming work to face the unglamorous and unexciting business
 | 
						|
of writing tests, particularly when you know your code is working properly.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
However, the task of writing tests is a lot more fulfilling than spending hours
 | 
						|
testing your application manually or trying to identify the cause of a
 | 
						|
newly-introduced problem.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests don't just identify problems, they prevent them
 | 
						|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
It's a mistake to think of tests merely as a negative aspect of development.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Without tests, the purpose or intended behavior of an application might be
 | 
						|
rather opaque. Even when it's your own code, you will sometimes find yourself
 | 
						|
poking around in it trying to find out what exactly it's doing.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests change that; they light up your code from the inside, and when something
 | 
						|
goes wrong, they focus light on the part that has gone wrong - *even if you
 | 
						|
hadn't even realized it had gone wrong*.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests make your code more attractive
 | 
						|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
You might have created a brilliant piece of software, but you will find that
 | 
						|
many other developers will simply refuse to look at it because it lacks tests;
 | 
						|
without tests, they won't trust it. Jacob Kaplan-Moss, one of Django's
 | 
						|
original developers, says "Code without tests is broken by design."
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
That other developers want to see tests in your software before they take it
 | 
						|
seriously is yet another reason for you to start writing tests.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Tests help teams work together
 | 
						|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The previous points are written from the point of view of a single developer
 | 
						|
maintaining an application. Complex applications will be maintained by teams.
 | 
						|
Tests guarantee that colleagues don't inadvertently break your code (and that
 | 
						|
you don't break theirs without knowing). If you want to make a living as a
 | 
						|
Django programmer, you must be good at writing tests!
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Basic testing strategies
 | 
						|
========================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
There are many ways to approach writing tests.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Some programmers follow a discipline called "`test-driven development`_"; they
 | 
						|
actually write their tests before they write their code. This might seem
 | 
						|
counter-intuitive, but in fact it's similar to what most people will often do
 | 
						|
anyway: they describe a problem, then create some code to solve it. Test-driven
 | 
						|
development simply formalizes the problem in a Python test case.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
More often, a newcomer to testing will create some code and later decide that
 | 
						|
it should have some tests. Perhaps it would have been better to write some
 | 
						|
tests earlier, but it's never too late to get started.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Sometimes it's difficult to figure out where to get started with writing tests.
 | 
						|
If you have written several thousand lines of Python, choosing something to
 | 
						|
test might not be easy. In such a case, it's fruitful to write your first test
 | 
						|
the next time you make a change, either when you add a new feature or fix a bug.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
So let's do that right away.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
.. _test-driven development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test-driven_development
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Writing our first test
 | 
						|
======================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We identify a bug
 | 
						|
-----------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Fortunately, there's a little bug in the ``polls`` application for us to fix
 | 
						|
right away: the ``Poll.was_published_recently()`` method returns ``True`` if
 | 
						|
the ``Poll`` was published within the last day (which is correct) but also if
 | 
						|
the ``Poll``'s ``pub_date`` field is in the future (which certainly isn't).
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
You can see this in the Admin; create a poll whose date lies in the future;
 | 
						|
you'll see that the ``Poll`` change list claims it was published recently.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
You can also see this using the shell::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    >>> import datetime
 | 
						|
    >>> from django.utils import timezone
 | 
						|
    >>> from polls.models import Poll
 | 
						|
    >>> # create a Poll instance with pub_date 30 days in the future
 | 
						|
    >>> future_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
 | 
						|
    >>> # was it published recently?
 | 
						|
    >>> future_poll.was_published_recently()
 | 
						|
    True
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Since things in the future are not 'recent', this is clearly wrong.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Create a test to expose the bug
 | 
						|
-------------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What we've just done in the shell to test for the problem is exactly what we
 | 
						|
can do in an automated test, so let's turn that into an automated test.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The best place for an application's tests is in the application's ``tests.py``
 | 
						|
file - the testing system will look there for tests automatically.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Put the following in the ``tests.py`` file in the ``polls`` application::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    import datetime
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    from django.utils import timezone
 | 
						|
    from django.test import TestCase
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    from polls.models import Poll
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    class PollMethodTests(TestCase):
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            was_published_recently() should return False for polls whose
 | 
						|
            pub_date is in the future
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            future_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30))
 | 
						|
            self.assertEqual(future_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What we have done here is created a :class:`django.test.TestCase` subclass
 | 
						|
with a method that creates a ``Poll`` instance with a ``pub_date`` in the
 | 
						|
future. We then check the output of ``was_published_recently()`` - which
 | 
						|
*ought* to be False.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Running tests
 | 
						|
-------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In the terminal, we can run our test::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    python manage.py test polls
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
and you'll see something like::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    Creating test database for alias 'default'...
 | 
						|
    F
 | 
						|
    ======================================================================
 | 
						|
    FAIL: test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll (polls.tests.PollMethodTests)
 | 
						|
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | 
						|
    Traceback (most recent call last):
 | 
						|
      File "/path/to/mysite/polls/tests.py", line 16, in test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll
 | 
						|
        self.assertEqual(future_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
 | 
						|
    AssertionError: True != False
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | 
						|
    Ran 1 test in 0.001s
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    FAILED (failures=1)
 | 
						|
    Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What happened is this:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* ``python manage.py test polls`` looked for tests in the ``polls`` application
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* it found a subclass of the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* it created a special database for the purpose of testing
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* it looked for test methods - ones whose names begin with ``test``
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* in ``test_was_published_recently_with_future_poll`` it created a ``Poll``
 | 
						|
  instance whose ``pub_date`` field is 30 days in the future
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* ... and using the ``assertEqual()`` method, it discovered that its
 | 
						|
  ``was_published_recently()`` returns ``True``, though we wanted it to return
 | 
						|
  ``False``
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The test informs us which test failed and even the line on which the failure
 | 
						|
occurred.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Fixing the bug
 | 
						|
--------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We already know what the problem is: ``Poll.was_published_recently()`` should
 | 
						|
return ``False`` if its ``pub_date`` is in the future. Amend the method in
 | 
						|
``models.py``, so that it will only return ``True`` if the date is also in the
 | 
						|
past::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    def was_published_recently(self):
 | 
						|
        now = timezone.now()
 | 
						|
        return now - datetime.timedelta(days=1) <= self.pub_date <  now
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
and run the test again::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    Creating test database for alias 'default'...
 | 
						|
    .
 | 
						|
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | 
						|
    Ran 1 test in 0.001s
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    OK
 | 
						|
    Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
After identifying a bug, we wrote a test that exposes it and corrected the bug
 | 
						|
in the code so our test passes.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Many other things might go wrong with our application in the future, but we can
 | 
						|
be sure that we won't inadvertently reintroduce this bug, because simply
 | 
						|
running the test will warn us immediately. We can consider this little portion
 | 
						|
of the application pinned down safely forever.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
More comprehensive tests
 | 
						|
------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
While we're here, we can further pin down the ``was_published_recently()``
 | 
						|
method; in fact, it would be positively embarrassing if in fixing one bug we had
 | 
						|
introduced another.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Add two more test methods to the same class, to test the behavior of the method
 | 
						|
more comprehensively::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    def test_was_published_recently_with_old_poll(self):
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        was_published_recently() should return False for polls whose pub_date
 | 
						|
        is older than 1 day
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        old_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(days=30))
 | 
						|
        self.assertEqual(old_poll.was_published_recently(), False)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    def test_was_published_recently_with_recent_poll(self):
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        was_published_recently() should return True for polls whose pub_date
 | 
						|
        is within the last day
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        recent_poll = Poll(pub_date=timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(hours=1))
 | 
						|
        self.assertEqual(recent_poll.was_published_recently(), True)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
And now we have three tests that confirm that ``Poll.was_published_recently()``
 | 
						|
returns sensible values for past, recent, and future polls.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Again, ``polls`` is a simple application, but however complex it grows in the
 | 
						|
future and whatever other code it interacts with, we now have some guarantee
 | 
						|
that the method we have written tests for will behave in expected ways.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Test a view
 | 
						|
===========
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The polls application is fairly undiscriminating: it will publish any poll,
 | 
						|
including ones whose ``pub_date`` field lies in the future. We should improve
 | 
						|
this. Setting a ``pub_date`` in the future should mean that the Poll is
 | 
						|
published at that moment, but invisible until then.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A test for a view
 | 
						|
-----------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
When we fixed the bug above, we wrote the test first and then the code to fix
 | 
						|
it. In fact that was a simple example of test-driven development, but it
 | 
						|
doesn't really matter in which order we do the work.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In our first test, we focused closely on the internal behavior of the code. For
 | 
						|
this test, we want to check its behavior as it would be experienced by a user
 | 
						|
through a web browser.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Before we try to fix anything, let's have a look at the tools at our disposal.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Django test client
 | 
						|
----------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Django provides a test :class:`~django.test.client.Client` to simulate a user
 | 
						|
interacting with the code at the view level.  We can use it in ``tests.py``
 | 
						|
or even in the shell.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We will start again with the shell, where we need to do a couple of things that
 | 
						|
won't be necessary in ``tests.py``. The first is to set up the test environment
 | 
						|
in the shell::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    >>> from django.test.utils import setup_test_environment
 | 
						|
    >>> setup_test_environment()
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Next we need to import the test client class (later in ``tests.py`` we will use
 | 
						|
the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class, which comes with its own client, so
 | 
						|
this won't be required)::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    >>> from django.test.client import Client
 | 
						|
    >>> # create an instance of the client for our use
 | 
						|
    >>> client = Client()
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
With that ready, we can ask the client to do some work for us::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    >>> # get a response from '/'
 | 
						|
    >>> response = client.get('/')
 | 
						|
    >>> # we should expect a 404 from that address
 | 
						|
    >>> response.status_code
 | 
						|
    404
 | 
						|
    >>> # on the other hand we should expect to find something at '/polls/'
 | 
						|
    >>> # we'll use 'reverse()' rather than a harcoded URL
 | 
						|
    >>> from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse
 | 
						|
    >>> response = client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
    >>> response.status_code
 | 
						|
    200
 | 
						|
    >>> response.content
 | 
						|
    '\n\n\n    <p>No polls are available.</p>\n\n'
 | 
						|
    >>> # note - you might get unexpected results if your ``TIME_ZONE``
 | 
						|
    >>> # in ``settings.py`` is not correct. If you need to change it,
 | 
						|
    >>> # you will also need to restart your shell session
 | 
						|
    >>> from polls.models import Poll
 | 
						|
    >>> from django.utils import timezone
 | 
						|
    >>> # create a Poll and save it
 | 
						|
    >>> p = Poll(question="Who is your favorite Beatle?", pub_date=timezone.now())
 | 
						|
    >>> p.save()
 | 
						|
    >>> # check the response once again
 | 
						|
    >>> response = client.get('/polls/')
 | 
						|
    >>> response.content
 | 
						|
    '\n\n\n    <ul>\n    \n        <li><a href="/polls/1/">Who is your favorite Beatle?</a></li>\n    \n    </ul>\n\n'
 | 
						|
    >>> response.context['latest_poll_list']
 | 
						|
    [<Poll: Who is your favorite Beatle?>]
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Improving our view
 | 
						|
------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The list of polls shows polls that aren't published yet (i.e. those that have a
 | 
						|
``pub_date`` in the future). Let's fix that.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In :doc:`Tutorial 4 </intro/tutorial04>` we deleted the view functions from
 | 
						|
``views.py`` in favor of a :class:`~django.views.generic.list.ListView` in
 | 
						|
``urls.py``::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    url(r'^$',
 | 
						|
        ListView.as_view(
 | 
						|
            queryset=Poll.objects.order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
 | 
						|
            context_object_name='latest_poll_list',
 | 
						|
            template_name='polls/index.html'),
 | 
						|
        name='index'),
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
``response.context_data['latest_poll_list']`` extracts the data this view
 | 
						|
places into the context.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We need to amend the line that gives us the ``queryset``::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    queryset=Poll.objects.order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Let's change the queryset so that it also checks the date by comparing it with
 | 
						|
``timezone.now()``. First we need to add an import::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    from django.utils import timezone
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
and then we must amend the existing ``url`` function to::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    url(r'^$',
 | 
						|
        ListView.as_view(
 | 
						|
            queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now) \
 | 
						|
                .order_by('-pub_date')[:5],
 | 
						|
            context_object_name='latest_poll_list',
 | 
						|
            template_name='polls/index.html'),
 | 
						|
        name='index'),
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
``Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now)`` returns a queryset
 | 
						|
containing Polls whose ``pub_date`` is less than or equal to - that is, earlier
 | 
						|
than or equal to - ``timezone.now``. Notice that we use a callable queryset
 | 
						|
argument, ``timezone.now``, which will be evaluated at request time. If we had
 | 
						|
included the parentheses, ``timezone.now()`` would be evaluated just once when
 | 
						|
the web server is started.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Testing our new view
 | 
						|
--------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Now you can satisfy yourself that this behaves as expected by firing up the
 | 
						|
runserver, loading the site in your browser, creating ``Polls`` with dates in
 | 
						|
the past and future, and checking that only those that have been published are
 | 
						|
listed.  You don't want to have to do that *every single time you make any
 | 
						|
change that might affect this* - so let's also create a test, based on our
 | 
						|
shell session above.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Add the following to ``polls/tests.py``::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    from django.core.urlresolvers import reverse
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
and we'll create a factory method to create polls as well as a new test class::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    def create_poll(question, days):
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        Creates a poll with the given `question` published the given number of
 | 
						|
        `days` offset to now (negative for polls published in the past,
 | 
						|
        positive for polls that have yet to be published).
 | 
						|
        """
 | 
						|
        return Poll.objects.create(question=question,
 | 
						|
            pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=days))
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    class PollViewTests(TestCase):
 | 
						|
        def test_index_view_with_no_polls(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            If no polls exist, an appropriate message should be displayed.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
            self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 200)
 | 
						|
            self.assertContains(response, "No polls are available.")
 | 
						|
            self.assertQuerysetEqual(response.context['latest_poll_list'], [])
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_index_view_with_a_past_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            Polls with a pub_date in the past should be displayed on the index page.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Past poll.", days=-30)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
            self.assertQuerysetEqual(
 | 
						|
                response.context['latest_poll_list'],
 | 
						|
                ['<Poll: Past poll.>']
 | 
						|
            )
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_index_view_with_a_future_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            Polls with a pub_date in the future should not be displayed on the
 | 
						|
            index page.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Future poll.", days=30)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
            self.assertContains(response, "No polls are available.", status_code=200)
 | 
						|
            self.assertQuerysetEqual(response.context['latest_poll_list'], [])
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_index_view_with_future_poll_and_past_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            Even if both past and future polls exist, only past polls should be
 | 
						|
            displayed.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Past poll.", days=-30)
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Future poll.", days=30)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
            self.assertQuerysetEqual(
 | 
						|
                response.context['latest_poll_list'],
 | 
						|
                ['<Poll: Past poll.>']
 | 
						|
            )
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_index_view_with_two_past_polls(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            The polls index page may display multiple polls.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Past poll 1.", days=-30)
 | 
						|
            create_poll(question="Past poll 2.", days=-5)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:index'))
 | 
						|
            self.assertQuerysetEqual(
 | 
						|
                response.context['latest_poll_list'],
 | 
						|
                 ['<Poll: Past poll 2.>', '<Poll: Past poll 1.>']
 | 
						|
            )
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Let's look at some of these more closely.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
First is a poll factory method, ``create_poll``, to take some repetition out
 | 
						|
of the process of creating polls.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
``test_index_view_with_no_polls`` doesn't create any polls, but checks the
 | 
						|
message: "No polls are available." and verifies the ``latest_poll_list`` is
 | 
						|
empty. Note that the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class provides some
 | 
						|
additional assertion methods. In these examples, we use
 | 
						|
:meth:`~django.test.TestCase.assertContains()` and
 | 
						|
:meth:`~django.test.TestCase.assertQuerysetEqual()`.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In ``test_index_view_with_a_past_poll``, we create a poll and verify that it
 | 
						|
appears in the list.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
In ``test_index_view_with_a_future_poll``, we create a poll with a ``pub_date``
 | 
						|
in the future. The database is reset for each test method, so the first poll is
 | 
						|
no longer there, and so again the index shouldn't have any polls in it.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
And so on. In effect, we are using the tests to tell a story of admin input
 | 
						|
and user experience on the site, and checking that at every state and for every
 | 
						|
new change in the state of the system, the expected results are published.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Testing the ``DetailView``
 | 
						|
--------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What we have works well; however, even though future polls don't appear in the
 | 
						|
*index*, users can still reach them if they know or guess the right URL. So we
 | 
						|
need similar constraints in the ``DetailViews``, by adding::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
to them - for example::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    url(r'^(?P<pk>\d+)/$',
 | 
						|
        DetailView.as_view(
 | 
						|
            queryset=Poll.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now),
 | 
						|
            model=Poll,
 | 
						|
            template_name='polls/detail.html'),
 | 
						|
        name='detail'),
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
and of course, we will add some tests, to check that a ``Poll`` whose
 | 
						|
``pub_date`` is in the past can be displayed, and that one with a ``pub_date``
 | 
						|
in the future is not::
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
    class PollIndexDetailTests(TestCase):
 | 
						|
        def test_detail_view_with_a_future_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            The detail view of a poll with a pub_date in the future should
 | 
						|
            return a 404 not found.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            future_poll = create_poll(question='Future poll.', days=5)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:detail', args=(future_poll.id,)))
 | 
						|
            self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 404)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
        def test_detail_view_with_a_past_poll(self):
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            The detail view of a poll with a pub_date in the past should display
 | 
						|
            the poll's question.
 | 
						|
            """
 | 
						|
            past_poll = create_poll(question='Past Poll.', days=-5)
 | 
						|
            response = self.client.get(reverse('polls:detail', args=(past_poll.id,)))
 | 
						|
            self.assertContains(response, past_poll.question, status_code=200)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Ideas for more tests
 | 
						|
--------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We ought to add similar ``queryset`` arguments to the other ``DetailView``
 | 
						|
URLs, and create a new test class for each view. They'll be very similar to
 | 
						|
what we have just created; in fact there will be a lot of repetition.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We could also improve our application in other ways, adding tests along the
 | 
						|
way. For example, it's silly that ``Polls`` can be published on the site that
 | 
						|
have no ``Choices``. So, our views could check for this, and exclude such
 | 
						|
``Polls``. Our tests would create a ``Poll`` without ``Choices`` and then test
 | 
						|
that it's not published, as well as create a similar ``Poll`` *with*
 | 
						|
``Choices``, and test that it *is* published.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Perhaps logged-in admin users should be allowed to see unpublished ``Polls``,
 | 
						|
but not ordinary visitors. Again: whatever needs to be added to the software to
 | 
						|
accomplish this should be accompanied by a test, whether you write the test
 | 
						|
first and then make the code pass the test, or work out the logic in your code
 | 
						|
first and then write a test to prove it.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
At a certain point you are bound to look at your tests and wonder whether your
 | 
						|
code is suffering from test bloat, which brings us to:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
When testing, more is better
 | 
						|
============================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
It might seem that our tests are growing out of control. At this rate there will
 | 
						|
soon be more code in our tests than in our application, and the repetition
 | 
						|
is unaesthetic, compared to the elegant conciseness of the rest of our code.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
**It doesn't matter**. Let them grow. For the most part, you can write a test
 | 
						|
once and then forget about it. It will continue performing its useful function
 | 
						|
as you continue to develop your program.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Sometimes tests will need to be updated. Suppose that we amend our views so that
 | 
						|
only ``Polls`` with ``Choices`` are published. In that case, many of our
 | 
						|
existing tests will fail - *telling us exactly which tests need to be amended to
 | 
						|
bring them up to date*, so to that extent tests help look after themselves.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
At worst, as you continue developing, you might find that you have some tests
 | 
						|
that are now redundant. Even that's not a problem; in testing redundancy is
 | 
						|
a *good* thing.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
As long as your tests are sensibly arranged, they won't become unmanageable.
 | 
						|
Good rules-of-thumb include having:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
* a separate ``TestClass`` for each model or view
 | 
						|
* a separate test method for each set of conditions you want to test
 | 
						|
* test method names that describe their function
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Further testing
 | 
						|
===============
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
This tutorial only introduces some of the basics of testing. There's a great
 | 
						|
deal more you can do, and a number of very useful tools at your disposal to
 | 
						|
achieve some very clever things.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For example, while our tests here have covered some of the internal logic of a
 | 
						|
model and the way our views publish information, you can use an "in-browser"
 | 
						|
framework such as Selenium_ to test the way your HTML actually renders in a
 | 
						|
browser. These tools allow you to check not just the behavior of your Django
 | 
						|
code, but also, for example, of your JavaScript. It's quite something to see
 | 
						|
the tests launch a browser, and start interacting with your site, as if a human
 | 
						|
being were driving it! Django includes :class:`~django.test.LiveServerTestCase`
 | 
						|
to facilitate integration with tools like Selenium.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you have a complex application, you may want to run tests automatically
 | 
						|
with every commit for the purposes of `continuous integration`_, so that
 | 
						|
quality control is itself - at least partially - automated.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A good way to spot untested parts of your application is to check code
 | 
						|
coverage. This also helps identify fragile or even dead code. If you can't test
 | 
						|
a piece of code, it usually means that code should be refactored or removed.
 | 
						|
Coverage will help to identify dead code. See
 | 
						|
:ref:`topics-testing-code-coverage` for details.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
:doc:`Testing Django applications </topics/testing/index>` has comprehensive
 | 
						|
information about testing.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
.. _Selenium: http://seleniumhq.org/
 | 
						|
.. _continuous integration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_integration
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
What's next?
 | 
						|
============
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For full details on testing, see :doc:`Testing in Django
 | 
						|
</topics/testing/index>`.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
When you're comfortable with testing Django views, read
 | 
						|
:doc:`part 6 of this tutorial</intro/tutorial06>` to learn about
 | 
						|
static files management.
 |