Faulty test for Grade School about python HOT 21 CLOSED

Well spotted! 👍

Leaving the choice of iterable to the user would indeed be nice. But I fear that some will still use a simple dict and pass the tests by chance when the iteration through the dict happens to be in sorted order.
It would of course be possible to test whether the return type for sort is dict or not…

What do you think?

from python.

Good catch! I think checking the type of the return value is reasonable:

expected = OrderedDict((3, ("Kyle",)),
                       (4, ("Christopher", "Jennifer",)),
                       (6, ("Kareem",)))
actual = self.school.sort()
self.assertFalse(type(actual) == dict, msg="return value of 'sort' cannot be of type 'dict' because 'dict's are unordered")
self.assertEqual(sorted_students, OrderedDict(actual))

I can't think of any other common unordered types users might return that would lead to false negatives, so we can probably just check against dict.

I figure the message might be helpful guidance for some users who haven't wrapped their heads around dict's lack of order, but I defer to maintainers to decide whether to use a message, and to decide on the best wording of a message.

Unless someone gets to it first, I'm happy to submit a PR with this change once a decision is reached on how to implement it. Are any changes required other than updating the test and the example implementation?

from python.

The message (msg) is just fine!
But it seems to me that assertNotEqual would be a more fitting method than assertFalse.

Are any changes required other than updating the test and the example implementation?

No :).

A PR would be very welcome!

from python.

The example isn't valid (at least in python 2).

$ python test.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "test.py", line 5, in <module>
    (6, ("Kareem",)))
  File "c:\Python27\lib\collections.py", line 45, in __init__
    raise TypeError('expected at most 1 arguments, got %d' % len(args))
TypeError: expected at most 1 arguments, got 3

I think another potential false negative is a set (though it depends on the change. I'm a little confused from the example). The best way I can think to test for order is to check if reversed is callable. The only way you can (sanely) implement reversed is if there is an order.

Python 2.7.8 (default, Jun 30 2014, 16:03:49) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> test = {1, 2, 3}
>>> def go(arg):
...     for k in arg:
...         print k
...
>>> go(test)
1
2
3
>>> go(reversed(test))
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: argument to reversed() must be a sequence

but

>>> test = ['a', 'b', 'c']
>>> go(test)
a
b
c
>>> go(reversed(test))
c
b
a

also for further sanity, here is reversed on dictionary and OrderedDictionary

>>> test = dict(a=1, b=2, c=3)
>>> reversed(test)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: argument to reversed() must be a sequence

>>> from collections import OrderedDict
>>> test = OrderedDict(a=1, b=2, c=3)
>>> reversed(test)
<generator object __reversed__ at 0x02A73DC8>

I kind of don't like putting OrderedDict in the test case because I think its the first thing people will read through when solving the problem. I worry people will just use OrderedDict and not stop to think about why its important.

from python.

I did a bit of looking and this may work:

from collections import Sequence
assert isinstance(obj, Sequence)

Example:

>>> isinstance(list(), Sequence)
True

However, this test fails for an OrderedDict:

>>> test = OrderedDict(a=1, b=2, c=3)
>>> isinstance(test, Sequence)
False

I think this may be the best way to solve the issue for now:

from collections import Sequence
self.assertTrue(isinstance(obj, Sequence) or callable(getattr(obj, '__reversed__', False)))

Examples:

>>> test = OrderedDict(a=1, b=2, c=3)
>>> isinstance(test, Sequence) or callable(getattr(test, '__reversed__', False))
True

>>> isinstance('test', Sequence) or callable(getattr('test', '__reversed__', False))
True

>>> isinstance(list(), Sequence) or callable(getattr(list(), '__reversed__', False))
True

>>> isinstance(set(), Sequence) or callable(getattr(set(), '__reversed__'), False)
False

>>> isinstance(dict(), Sequence) or callable(getattr(dict(), '__reversed__'), False)
False

from python.

The example isn't valid...

My mistake - I think I was editing on a tablet 😛. Corrected OrderedDict call here:

sorted_students = OrderedDict([(3, ("Kyle")),
                               (4, ("Christopher", "Jennifer")),
                               (6, ("Kareem"))])

I'm a little confused from the example

Sorry about that; let me know what I can clarify!

callable(getattr(obj, '__reversed__', False)))

Any reason to use this over hasattr(obj, '__reversed__')?

The isinstance... or hasattr... approach seems a reasonable type-check.

I worry people will just use OrderedDict and not stop to think about why its important.

True, but they'll also learn about the collections module. Just a thought -- I don't know if that's a priority for this exercise.

The benefit of using OrderedDict was that it would consume its input and put it in a checkable format regardless of its type. That is to say, it would treat all of these the same:

• OrderedDict([('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3)])
• [('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3)]
• (('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3))
• generate_pairs()

where generate_pairs is:

def generate_pairs():
    for p in [('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3)]:
        yield p

By my reckoning, these are all properly-sorted values, and using them as the input to an OrderedDict effectively normalizes them for correctness checking.

Though I may be overthinking the problem -- the spec does say that you should be able to "get a sorted list" [emphasis mine]. So maybe checking could be limited to something like

actual = self.school.sort()
self.assertEqual(actual[0], (3, ("Kyle")))
self.assertEqual(actual[1], (4, ("Christopher", "Jennifer")))
self.assertEqual(actual[2], (6, ("Kareem")))

which would disallow generator functions and OrderedDicts. That might be ok! I defer to the maintainers on this kind of decision.

from python.

The reason I did callable(getattr(obj, '__reversed__', False))) was for sanity. Here is where hasattr would fail:

>>> class Example:
...     def __init__(self):
...         self.__reversed__ = 'Some men just want to watch the world burn'
...
>>> hasattr(Example(), '__reversed__')
True
>>> callable(getattr(Example(), '__reversed__', False))
False

I was thinking that the test could be written similar to your last example.

Here is a version I wrote up quickly:

def test_sort_school(self):
    students = {
        3: ("Kyle",),
        4: ("Christopher", "Jennifer",),
        6: ("Kareem",)
    }

    for grade, students in students.iteritems():
        for student in students:
            self.school.add(student, grade)

    result = self.school.sort()

    # Attempts to catch false positives
    self.assertTrue(isinstance(result, Sequence) or callable(getattr(result, '__reversed__', False)))

    previous_key = None
    for key, value in result:
        self.assertTrue(previous_key < key)
        previous_key = key
        self.assertEqual(students[key], value)

I can't test it at the moment because I have three minutes of battery life left.

This isn't to say that using an OrderedDict is a bad idea. Functionality-wise it works for what is needed. I just think it may be better to avoid mentioning it since the test cases are provided.

from python.

self.__reversed__ = ...

I don't see why someone would do this (unless, as you say, they want to watch the world burn), I don't think checking __reversed__ is callable does any harm.

for key, value in result:
...

Beautiful. Communicates the intent much better than my proposal.

I've tested this with several small changes:

def test_sort_school(self):
    students = {
        3: ("Kyle",),
        4: ("Christopher", "Jennifer",),
        6: ("Kareem",)
    }

    for grade, students_in_grade in students.items():
        for student in students_in_grade:
            self.school.add(student, grade)

    result = self.school.sort()

    # Attempts to catch false positives
    self.assertTrue(isinstance(result, Sequence) or
                    callable(getattr(result, '__reversed__', False)))

    try:
        result = result.items()
    except AttributeError:
        pass

    previous_key = min(students.keys()) - 1
    for key, value in result:
        self.assertTrue(previous_key < key)
        previous_key = key
        self.assertEqual(students[key], value)

Changes:

• iterates over students.items() for Python 3 compatibility
• uses students_in_grade to avoid clobbering students
• sets result to result.items() if it has that attribute -- i.e. if it's an OrderedDict, since iterating over an OrderedDict just iterates over the keys
• initializes previous_key with a meaningful number instead of None.

Works on 2.7 and 3.4 on my machine.

from python.

I'd argue that None is more meaningful because its not a number. There is no previous key on the initial iteration.

None < any_integer is always True. It also prevents having to iterate through all the keys an extra time to figure out which is the minimum, then decrementing to simply pass the first check.

I think setting previous_key to -1 would be the next best solution, because you can not have a negative grade and it still avoids the extra iterating required for min.

I'll take a closer look at it when I get home tonight.

from python.

If I understand the tests correctly, they'd currently allow an empty sequence to pass.
Wouldn't it be easier to call list on result and compare that against a constant?

from python.

An empty sequence would pass since we only iterate the keys in result.

We can't pass result to list though, because then we lose the values:

>>> test = {'Animal': 'Dog'}
>>> print list(test)
['Animal']

Unless I misunderstand your suggestion.

from python.

Ok. Maybe something like result_list = list(result.items() if hasattr(result, "items") else result)?

from python.

I'm trying to think of what case .items() may not work for, and if using result may cause an issue. The only one I can think of is if someone decided to write their own custom container for their solution - which is a bit overkill. In that case they probably realize they would need a .items() method looking at the test case.

Also result.items() is already a list:

>>> test = {'Animal': 'Dog'}
>>> list(test.items())
[('Animal', 'Dog')]
>>> test.items()
[('Animal', 'Dog')]

So we could probably just check .items() against a constant.

from python.

In Python 3.4 items returns some kind of iterator:

In [2]: o = OrderedDict({1: ('Alice',)})

In [3]: o.items()
Out[3]: ItemsView(OrderedDict([(1, ('Alice',))]))

from python.

None is more meaningful

Fair enough! Never seen it used that way is all.

We could probably just check .items() against a constant.

That'd deal with the case where .sort returns something empty.

If we use @sjakobi's suggested result_list = ... implementation, then compare the result_list to a constant, then we've covered lists, tuples, generator functions, and OrderedDicts, I believe. That's good enough for me. I'd expect users to either be new enough to stick to the basic datatypes or experienced enough to read the test and work with the API it requires.

from python.

Updated test case:

    def test_sort_school(self):
        students = [
            (3, ("Kyle",)),
            (4, ("Christopher", "Jennifer",)),
            (6, ("Kareem",))
        ]

        for grade, students_in_grade in students:
            for student in students_in_grade:
                self.school.add(student, grade)

        result = self.school.sort()

        # Attempts to catch false positives
        self.assertTrue(isinstance(result, Sequence) or
                        callable(getattr(result, '__reversed__', False)))

        result_list = list(result.items() if hasattr(result, "items")
                           else result)

        self.assertEqual(result_list, students)

The test case still fails (at least with Python3.4) when sort returns a generic generator, because it neither is an instance of Sequence nor has the __reversed__ attribute.

from python.

The test case still fails (at least with Python3.4) when sort returns a generic generator, because it neither is an instance of Sequence nor has the __reversed__ attribute.

Good catch. How about types.GeneratorType? So the type check would be

from types import GeneratorType
...
        self.assertTrue(isinstance(result, Sequence) or
                        isinstance(result, GeneratorType) or
                        callable(getattr(result, '__reversed__', False)))

This still prevents false positives from sets and dicts:

>>> isinstance({}, GeneratorType)
False
>>> isinstance(set(), GeneratorType)
False

This holds on 3.4 and 2.7.

from python.

Anyone have any more revisions to propose? If not, let's do this. I'm happy to put together the PR unless someone else wants to grab the glory.

from python.

I just realized that we haven't talked about the packaging of the students for each grade. Do we allow tuples, lists, generators?

At the same time I'm under the impression that our test case is already complicated enough…

from python.

I'm ok with enforcing the use of a tuple and keeping complexity down. Any objections?

from python.

I'm ok with enforcing the use of a tuple and keeping complexity down.

Me too!

Looking forward to your PR!

from python.