Download testbed/django__django/docs/intro/tutorial05.txt from hc99/FEA-Bench: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 28.4 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/hc99/FEA-Bench/resolve/main/testbed/django__django/docs/intro/tutorial05.txt
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/hc99/FEA-Bench/testbed/django__django/docs/intro/tutorial05.txt
-
curl -L -o tutorial05.txt https://huggingface.co/datasets/hc99/FEA-Bench/resolve/main/testbed/django__django/docs/intro/tutorial05.txt
28.4 kB
| ===================================== | |
| 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. | |
| .. admonition:: Where to get help: | |
| If you're having trouble going through this tutorial, please head over to | |
| the :doc:`Getting Help</faq/help>` section of the FAQ. | |
| Introducing automated testing | |
| ============================= | |
| What are automated tests? | |
| ------------------------- | |
| Tests are 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 2 </intro/tutorial02>`, using the | |
| :djadmin:`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 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 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 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: https://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 ``Question.was_published_recently()`` method returns ``True`` if | |
| the ``Question`` was published within the last day (which is correct) but also if | |
| the ``Question``’s ``pub_date`` field is in the future (which certainly isn't). | |
| Confirm the bug by using the :djadmin:`shell` to check the method on a question | |
| whose date lies in the future: | |
| .. console:: | |
| $ python manage.py shell | |
| .. code-block:: pycon | |
| >>> import datetime | |
| >>> from django.utils import timezone | |
| >>> from polls.models import Question | |
| >>> # create a Question instance with pub_date 30 days in the future | |
| >>> future_question = Question(pub_date=timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30)) | |
| >>> # was it published recently? | |
| >>> future_question.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 :djadmin:`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. | |
| A conventional place for an application's tests is in the application's | |
| ``tests.py`` file; the testing system will automatically find tests in any file | |
| whose name begins with ``test``. | |
| Put the following in the ``tests.py`` file in the ``polls`` application: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/tests.py`` | |
| import datetime | |
| from django.test import TestCase | |
| from django.utils import timezone | |
| from .models import Question | |
| class QuestionModelTests(TestCase): | |
| def test_was_published_recently_with_future_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| was_published_recently() returns False for questions whose pub_date | |
| is in the future. | |
| """ | |
| time = timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=30) | |
| future_question = Question(pub_date=time) | |
| self.assertIs(future_question.was_published_recently(), False) | |
| Here we have created a :class:`django.test.TestCase` subclass with a method that | |
| creates a ``Question`` 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: | |
| .. console:: | |
| $ python manage.py test polls | |
| and you'll see something like: | |
| .. code-block:: shell | |
| Creating test database for alias 'default'... | |
| System check identified no issues (0 silenced). | |
| F | |
| ====================================================================== | |
| FAIL: test_was_published_recently_with_future_question (polls.tests.QuestionModelTests) | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Traceback (most recent call last): | |
| File "/path/to/mysite/polls/tests.py", line 16, in test_was_published_recently_with_future_question | |
| self.assertIs(future_question.was_published_recently(), False) | |
| AssertionError: True is not False | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| Ran 1 test in 0.001s | |
| FAILED (failures=1) | |
| Destroying test database for alias 'default'... | |
| .. admonition:: Different error? | |
| If instead you're getting a ``NameError`` here, you may have missed a step | |
| in :ref:`Part 2 <tutorial02-import-timezone>` where we added imports of | |
| ``datetime`` and ``timezone`` to ``polls/models.py``. Copy the imports from | |
| that section, and try running your tests again. | |
| What happened is this: | |
| * ``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_question`` it created a ``Question`` | |
| instance whose ``pub_date`` field is 30 days in the future | |
| * ... and using the ``assertIs()`` 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: ``Question.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: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/models.py`` | |
| def was_published_recently(self): | |
| now = timezone.now() | |
| return now - datetime.timedelta(days=1) <= self.pub_date <= now | |
| and run the test again: | |
| .. code-block:: pytb | |
| Creating test database for alias 'default'... | |
| System check identified no issues (0 silenced). | |
| . | |
| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
| 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 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: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/tests.py`` | |
| def test_was_published_recently_with_old_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| was_published_recently() returns False for questions whose pub_date | |
| is older than 1 day. | |
| """ | |
| time = timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(days=1, seconds=1) | |
| old_question = Question(pub_date=time) | |
| self.assertIs(old_question.was_published_recently(), False) | |
| def test_was_published_recently_with_recent_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| was_published_recently() returns True for questions whose pub_date | |
| is within the last day. | |
| """ | |
| time = timezone.now() - datetime.timedelta(hours=23, minutes=59, seconds=59) | |
| recent_question = Question(pub_date=time) | |
| self.assertIs(recent_question.was_published_recently(), True) | |
| And now we have three tests that confirm that ``Question.was_published_recently()`` | |
| returns sensible values for past, recent, and future questions. | |
| Again, ``polls`` is a minimal 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 question, | |
| 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 Question 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 an 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` to simulate a user | |
| interacting with the code at the view level. We can use it in ``tests.py`` | |
| or even in the :djadmin:`shell`. | |
| We will start again with the :djadmin:`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 :djadmin:`shell`: | |
| .. console:: | |
| $ python manage.py shell | |
| .. code-block:: pycon | |
| >>> from django.test.utils import setup_test_environment | |
| >>> setup_test_environment() | |
| :meth:`~django.test.utils.setup_test_environment` installs a template renderer | |
| which will allow us to examine some additional attributes on responses such as | |
| ``response.context`` that otherwise wouldn't be available. Note that this | |
| method *does not* set up a test database, so the following will be run against | |
| the existing database and the output may differ slightly depending on what | |
| questions you already created. You might get unexpected results if your | |
| ``TIME_ZONE`` in ``settings.py`` isn't correct. If you don't remember setting | |
| it earlier, check it before continuing. | |
| 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): | |
| .. code-block:: pycon | |
| >>> from django.test 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: | |
| .. code-block:: pycon | |
| >>> # get a response from '/' | |
| >>> response = client.get("/") | |
| Not Found: / | |
| >>> # we should expect a 404 from that address; if you instead see an | |
| >>> # "Invalid HTTP_HOST header" error and a 400 response, you probably | |
| >>> # omitted the setup_test_environment() call described earlier. | |
| >>> response.status_code | |
| 404 | |
| >>> # on the other hand we should expect to find something at '/polls/' | |
| >>> # we'll use 'reverse()' rather than a hardcoded URL | |
| >>> from django.urls import reverse | |
| >>> response = client.get(reverse("polls:index")) | |
| >>> response.status_code | |
| 200 | |
| >>> response.content | |
| b'\n <ul>\n \n <li><a href="/polls/1/">What's up?</a></li>\n \n </ul>\n\n' | |
| >>> response.context["latest_question_list"] | |
| <QuerySet [<Question: What's up?>]> | |
| 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 introduced a class-based view, | |
| based on :class:`~django.views.generic.list.ListView`: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/views.py`` | |
| class IndexView(generic.ListView): | |
| template_name = "polls/index.html" | |
| context_object_name = "latest_question_list" | |
| def get_queryset(self): | |
| """Return the last five published questions.""" | |
| return Question.objects.order_by("-pub_date")[:5] | |
| We need to amend the ``get_queryset()`` method and change it so that it also | |
| checks the date by comparing it with ``timezone.now()``. First we need to add | |
| an import: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/views.py`` | |
| from django.utils import timezone | |
| and then we must amend the ``get_queryset`` method like so: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/views.py`` | |
| def get_queryset(self): | |
| """ | |
| Return the last five published questions (not including those set to be | |
| published in the future). | |
| """ | |
| return Question.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now()).order_by("-pub_date")[ | |
| :5 | |
| ] | |
| ``Question.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now())`` returns a queryset | |
| containing ``Question``\s whose ``pub_date`` is less than or equal to - that | |
| is, earlier than or equal to - ``timezone.now``. | |
| Testing our new view | |
| -------------------- | |
| Now you can satisfy yourself that this behaves as expected by firing up | |
| ``runserver``, loading the site in your browser, creating ``Questions`` 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 :djadmin:`shell` session above. | |
| Add the following to ``polls/tests.py``: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/tests.py`` | |
| from django.urls import reverse | |
| and we'll create a shortcut function to create questions as well as a new test | |
| class: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/tests.py`` | |
| def create_question(question_text, days): | |
| """ | |
| Create a question with the given `question_text` and published the | |
| given number of `days` offset to now (negative for questions published | |
| in the past, positive for questions that have yet to be published). | |
| """ | |
| time = timezone.now() + datetime.timedelta(days=days) | |
| return Question.objects.create(question_text=question_text, pub_date=time) | |
| class QuestionIndexViewTests(TestCase): | |
| def test_no_questions(self): | |
| """ | |
| If no questions exist, an appropriate message is 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_question_list"], []) | |
| def test_past_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| Questions with a pub_date in the past are displayed on the | |
| index page. | |
| """ | |
| question = create_question(question_text="Past question.", days=-30) | |
| response = self.client.get(reverse("polls:index")) | |
| self.assertQuerySetEqual( | |
| response.context["latest_question_list"], | |
| [question], | |
| ) | |
| def test_future_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| Questions with a pub_date in the future aren't displayed on | |
| the index page. | |
| """ | |
| create_question(question_text="Future question.", days=30) | |
| response = self.client.get(reverse("polls:index")) | |
| self.assertContains(response, "No polls are available.") | |
| self.assertQuerySetEqual(response.context["latest_question_list"], []) | |
| def test_future_question_and_past_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| Even if both past and future questions exist, only past questions | |
| are displayed. | |
| """ | |
| question = create_question(question_text="Past question.", days=-30) | |
| create_question(question_text="Future question.", days=30) | |
| response = self.client.get(reverse("polls:index")) | |
| self.assertQuerySetEqual( | |
| response.context["latest_question_list"], | |
| [question], | |
| ) | |
| def test_two_past_questions(self): | |
| """ | |
| The questions index page may display multiple questions. | |
| """ | |
| question1 = create_question(question_text="Past question 1.", days=-30) | |
| question2 = create_question(question_text="Past question 2.", days=-5) | |
| response = self.client.get(reverse("polls:index")) | |
| self.assertQuerySetEqual( | |
| response.context["latest_question_list"], | |
| [question2, question1], | |
| ) | |
| Let's look at some of these more closely. | |
| First is a question shortcut function, ``create_question``, to take some | |
| repetition out of the process of creating questions. | |
| ``test_no_questions`` doesn't create any questions, but checks the message: | |
| "No polls are available." and verifies the ``latest_question_list`` is empty. | |
| Note that the :class:`django.test.TestCase` class provides some additional | |
| assertion methods. In these examples, we use | |
| :meth:`~django.test.SimpleTestCase.assertContains()` and | |
| :meth:`~django.test.TransactionTestCase.assertQuerySetEqual()`. | |
| In ``test_past_question``, we create a question and verify that it appears in | |
| the list. | |
| In ``test_future_question``, we create a question with a ``pub_date`` in the | |
| future. The database is reset for each test method, so the first question is no | |
| longer there, and so again the index shouldn't have any questions 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 questions don't appear in | |
| the *index*, users can still reach them if they know or guess the right URL. So | |
| we need to add a similar constraint to ``DetailView``: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/views.py`` | |
| class DetailView(generic.DetailView): | |
| ... | |
| def get_queryset(self): | |
| """ | |
| Excludes any questions that aren't published yet. | |
| """ | |
| return Question.objects.filter(pub_date__lte=timezone.now()) | |
| We should then add some tests, to check that a ``Question`` whose ``pub_date`` | |
| is in the past can be displayed, and that one with a ``pub_date`` in the future | |
| is not: | |
| .. code-block:: python | |
| :caption: ``polls/tests.py`` | |
| class QuestionDetailViewTests(TestCase): | |
| def test_future_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| The detail view of a question with a pub_date in the future | |
| returns a 404 not found. | |
| """ | |
| future_question = create_question(question_text="Future question.", days=5) | |
| url = reverse("polls:detail", args=(future_question.id,)) | |
| response = self.client.get(url) | |
| self.assertEqual(response.status_code, 404) | |
| def test_past_question(self): | |
| """ | |
| The detail view of a question with a pub_date in the past | |
| displays the question's text. | |
| """ | |
| past_question = create_question(question_text="Past Question.", days=-5) | |
| url = reverse("polls:detail", args=(past_question.id,)) | |
| response = self.client.get(url) | |
| self.assertContains(response, past_question.question_text) | |
| Ideas for more tests | |
| -------------------- | |
| We ought to add a similar ``get_queryset`` method to ``ResultsView`` and | |
| create a new test class for that view. It'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 ``Questions`` can be published on the site | |
| that have no ``Choices``. So, our views could check for this, and exclude such | |
| ``Questions``. Our tests would create a ``Question`` without ``Choices`` and | |
| then test that it's not published, as well as create a similar ``Question`` | |
| *with* ``Choices``, and test that it *is* published. | |
| Perhaps logged-in admin users should be allowed to see unpublished | |
| ``Questions``, 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 ``Questions`` 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 in Django </topics/testing/index>` has comprehensive | |
| information about testing. | |
| .. _Selenium: https://www.selenium.dev/ | |
| .. _continuous integration: https://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. | |