Fixes #5054: Enhance Should Contains for bytes #5097
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
droeland
changed the title
pekkaklarck
requested changes
May 29, 2024
| @@ -1042,7 +1042,7 @@ def should_contain(self, container, item, msg=None, values=True, | |||
| ignore_case=False, strip_spaces=False, collapse_spaces=False): | |||
| """Fails if ``container`` does not contain ``item`` one or more times. | |||
|
|
|||
| Works with strings, lists, and anything that supports Python's ``in`` | |||
| Works with strings, lists, bytes, and anything that supports Python's ``in`` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It should be explained somewhere in the docs that the item is converted from sting to bytes automatically f the container is bytes. There should also be a note that this functionality is new in RF 7.1.
| [Template] Should Contain | ||
| ${BYTES} ${1000} | ||
| ${BYTES} ${UNICODE_NON_LATIN} | ||
| ${BYTES} \xA0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- It doesn't really matter, but it would be kind of better to have passing examples first.
- It would probably be a good idea to add a passing example where the item that's search for is an integer like ${1}.
- An example where the item itself is bytes would be good too. Could use the inline Python evaluation syntax like
${{b'\x02\xa0'}}. - An example that fails so that there's no conversion error would be good too.
- Not sure does it make sense to have all these examples in a single test. There could, for example, be one test where the item is bytes, another where it's an integer, and one where it's string. You can decide.
| try: | ||
| item = item.encode('latin-1') | ||
| except UnicodeEncodeError: | ||
| raise ValueError(f"{item} can not be encoded into bytes.") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You added a test where the item is 1000 and it fails for a ValueError. Should we actually validate that, if the item is an integer, it is in range 0-255 and provide a nicer error than the current byte must be in range(0, 256) that Python gives us? That would also avoid the issue with the error possibly changing in some future Python version.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Implemented as described in the issue.
Fixes #5054.