Add m-esr52 at 52.6.0

1 files changed, 1063 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/python/mock-1.0.0/docs/examples.txt b/python/mock-1.0.0/docs/examples.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ecb994b15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/python/mock-1.0.0/docs/examples.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1063 @@
+.. _further-examples:
+
+==================
+ Further Examples
+==================
+
+.. currentmodule:: mock
+
+.. testsetup::
+
+    from datetime import date
+
+    BackendProvider = Mock()
+    sys.modules['mymodule'] = mymodule = Mock(name='mymodule')
+
+    def grob(val):
+        "First frob and then clear val"
+        mymodule.frob(val)
+        val.clear()
+
+    mymodule.frob = lambda val: val
+    mymodule.grob = grob
+    mymodule.date = date
+
+    class TestCase(unittest2.TestCase):
+        def run(self):
+            result = unittest2.TestResult()
+            out = unittest2.TestCase.run(self, result)
+            assert result.wasSuccessful()
+
+    from mock import inPy3k
+
+
+
+For comprehensive examples, see the unit tests included in the full source
+distribution.
+
+Here are some more examples for some slightly more advanced scenarios than in
+the :ref:`getting started <getting-started>` guide.
+
+
+Mocking chained calls
+=====================
+
+Mocking chained calls is actually straightforward with mock once you
+understand the :attr:`~Mock.return_value` attribute. When a mock is called for
+the first time, or you fetch its `return_value` before it has been called, a
+new `Mock` is created.
+
+This means that you can see how the object returned from a call to a mocked
+object has been used by interrogating the `return_value` mock:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock()
+    >>> mock().foo(a=2, b=3)
+    <Mock name='mock().foo()' id='...'>
+    >>> mock.return_value.foo.assert_called_with(a=2, b=3)
+
+From here it is a simple step to configure and then make assertions about
+chained calls. Of course another alternative is writing your code in a more
+testable way in the first place...
+
+So, suppose we have some code that looks a little bit like this:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Something(object):
+    ...     def __init__(self):
+    ...         self.backend = BackendProvider()
+    ...     def method(self):
+    ...         response = self.backend.get_endpoint('foobar').create_call('spam', 'eggs').start_call()
+    ...         # more code
+
+Assuming that `BackendProvider` is already well tested, how do we test
+`method()`? Specifically, we want to test that the code section `# more
+code` uses the response object in the correct way.
+
+As this chain of calls is made from an instance attribute we can monkey patch
+the `backend` attribute on a `Something` instance. In this particular case
+we are only interested in the return value from the final call to
+`start_call` so we don't have much configuration to do. Let's assume the
+object it returns is 'file-like', so we'll ensure that our response object
+uses the builtin `file` as its `spec`.
+
+To do this we create a mock instance as our mock backend and create a mock
+response object for it. To set the response as the return value for that final
+`start_call` we could do this:
+
+    `mock_backend.get_endpoint.return_value.create_call.return_value.start_call.return_value = mock_response`.
+
+We can do that in a slightly nicer way using the :meth:`~Mock.configure_mock`
+method to directly set the return value for us:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> something = Something()
+    >>> mock_response = Mock(spec=file)
+    >>> mock_backend = Mock()
+    >>> config = {'get_endpoint.return_value.create_call.return_value.start_call.return_value': mock_response}
+    >>> mock_backend.configure_mock(**config)
+
+With these we monkey patch the "mock backend" in place and can make the real
+call:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> something.backend = mock_backend
+    >>> something.method()
+
+Using :attr:`~Mock.mock_calls` we can check the chained call with a single
+assert. A chained call is several calls in one line of code, so there will be
+several entries in `mock_calls`. We can use :meth:`call.call_list` to create
+this list of calls for us:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> chained = call.get_endpoint('foobar').create_call('spam', 'eggs').start_call()
+    >>> call_list = chained.call_list()
+    >>> assert mock_backend.mock_calls == call_list
+
+
+Partial mocking
+===============
+
+In some tests I wanted to mock out a call to `datetime.date.today()
+<http://docs.python.org/library/datetime.html#datetime.date.today>`_ to return
+a known date, but I didn't want to prevent the code under test from
+creating new date objects. Unfortunately `datetime.date` is written in C, and
+so I couldn't just monkey-patch out the static `date.today` method.
+
+I found a simple way of doing this that involved effectively wrapping the date
+class with a mock, but passing through calls to the constructor to the real
+class (and returning real instances).
+
+The :func:`patch decorator <patch>` is used here to
+mock out the `date` class in the module under test. The :attr:`side_effect`
+attribute on the mock date class is then set to a lambda function that returns
+a real date. When the mock date class is called a real date will be
+constructed and returned by `side_effect`.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> from datetime import date
+    >>> with patch('mymodule.date') as mock_date:
+    ...     mock_date.today.return_value = date(2010, 10, 8)
+    ...     mock_date.side_effect = lambda *args, **kw: date(*args, **kw)
+    ...
+    ...     assert mymodule.date.today() == date(2010, 10, 8)
+    ...     assert mymodule.date(2009, 6, 8) == date(2009, 6, 8)
+    ...
+
+Note that we don't patch `datetime.date` globally, we patch `date` in the
+module that *uses* it. See :ref:`where to patch <where-to-patch>`.
+
+When `date.today()` is called a known date is returned, but calls to the
+`date(...)` constructor still return normal dates. Without this you can find
+yourself having to calculate an expected result using exactly the same
+algorithm as the code under test, which is a classic testing anti-pattern.
+
+Calls to the date constructor are recorded in the `mock_date` attributes
+(`call_count` and friends) which may also be useful for your tests.
+
+An alternative way of dealing with mocking dates, or other builtin classes,
+is discussed in `this blog entry
+<http://williamjohnbert.com/2011/07/how-to-unit-testing-in-django-with-mocking-and-patching/>`_.
+
+
+Mocking a Generator Method
+==========================
+
+A Python generator is a function or method that uses the `yield statement
+<http://docs.python.org/reference/simple_stmts.html#the-yield-statement>`_ to
+return a series of values when iterated over [#]_.
+
+A generator method / function is called to return the generator object. It is
+the generator object that is then iterated over. The protocol method for
+iteration is `__iter__
+<http://docs.python.org/library/stdtypes.html#container.__iter__>`_, so we can
+mock this using a `MagicMock`.
+
+Here's an example class with an "iter" method implemented as a generator:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Foo(object):
+    ...     def iter(self):
+    ...         for i in [1, 2, 3]:
+    ...             yield i
+    ...
+    >>> foo = Foo()
+    >>> list(foo.iter())
+    [1, 2, 3]
+
+
+How would we mock this class, and in particular its "iter" method?
+
+To configure the values returned from the iteration (implicit in the call to
+`list`), we need to configure the object returned by the call to `foo.iter()`.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock_foo = MagicMock()
+    >>> mock_foo.iter.return_value = iter([1, 2, 3])
+    >>> list(mock_foo.iter())
+    [1, 2, 3]
+
+.. [#] There are also generator expressions and more `advanced uses
+    <http://www.dabeaz.com/coroutines/index.html>`_ of generators, but we aren't
+    concerned about them here. A very good introduction to generators and how
+    powerful they are is: `Generator Tricks for Systems Programmers
+    <http://www.dabeaz.com/generators/>`_.
+
+
+Applying the same patch to every test method
+============================================
+
+If you want several patches in place for multiple test methods the obvious way
+is to apply the patch decorators to every method. This can feel like unnecessary
+repetition. For Python 2.6 or more recent you can use `patch` (in all its
+various forms) as a class decorator. This applies the patches to all test
+methods on the class. A test method is identified by methods whose names start
+with `test`:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> @patch('mymodule.SomeClass')
+    ... class MyTest(TestCase):
+    ...
+    ...     def test_one(self, MockSomeClass):
+    ...         self.assertTrue(mymodule.SomeClass is MockSomeClass)
+    ...
+    ...     def test_two(self, MockSomeClass):
+    ...         self.assertTrue(mymodule.SomeClass is MockSomeClass)
+    ...
+    ...     def not_a_test(self):
+    ...         return 'something'
+    ...
+    >>> MyTest('test_one').test_one()
+    >>> MyTest('test_two').test_two()
+    >>> MyTest('test_two').not_a_test()
+    'something'
+
+An alternative way of managing patches is to use the :ref:`start-and-stop`.
+These allow you to move the patching into your `setUp` and `tearDown` methods.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class MyTest(TestCase):
+    ...     def setUp(self):
+    ...         self.patcher = patch('mymodule.foo')
+    ...         self.mock_foo = self.patcher.start()
+    ...
+    ...     def test_foo(self):
+    ...         self.assertTrue(mymodule.foo is self.mock_foo)
+    ...
+    ...     def tearDown(self):
+    ...         self.patcher.stop()
+    ...
+    >>> MyTest('test_foo').run()
+
+If you use this technique you must ensure that the patching is "undone" by
+calling `stop`. This can be fiddlier than you might think, because if an
+exception is raised in the setUp then tearDown is not called. `unittest2
+<http://pypi.python.org/pypi/unittest2>`_ cleanup functions make this simpler:
+
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class MyTest(TestCase):
+    ...     def setUp(self):
+    ...         patcher = patch('mymodule.foo')
+    ...         self.addCleanup(patcher.stop)
+    ...         self.mock_foo = patcher.start()
+    ...
+    ...     def test_foo(self):
+    ...         self.assertTrue(mymodule.foo is self.mock_foo)
+    ...
+    >>> MyTest('test_foo').run()
+
+
+Mocking Unbound Methods
+=======================
+
+Whilst writing tests today I needed to patch an *unbound method* (patching the
+method on the class rather than on the instance). I needed self to be passed
+in as the first argument because I want to make asserts about which objects
+were calling this particular method. The issue is that you can't patch with a
+mock for this, because if you replace an unbound method with a mock it doesn't
+become a bound method when fetched from the instance, and so it doesn't get
+self passed in. The workaround is to patch the unbound method with a real
+function instead. The :func:`patch` decorator makes it so simple to
+patch out methods with a mock that having to create a real function becomes a
+nuisance.
+
+If you pass `autospec=True` to patch then it does the patching with a
+*real* function object. This function object has the same signature as the one
+it is replacing, but delegates to a mock under the hood. You still get your
+mock auto-created in exactly the same way as before. What it means though, is
+that if you use it to patch out an unbound method on a class the mocked
+function will be turned into a bound method if it is fetched from an instance.
+It will have `self` passed in as the first argument, which is exactly what I
+wanted:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Foo(object):
+    ...   def foo(self):
+    ...     pass
+    ...
+    >>> with patch.object(Foo, 'foo', autospec=True) as mock_foo:
+    ...   mock_foo.return_value = 'foo'
+    ...   foo = Foo()
+    ...   foo.foo()
+    ...
+    'foo'
+    >>> mock_foo.assert_called_once_with(foo)
+
+If we don't use `autospec=True` then the unbound method is patched out
+with a Mock instance instead, and isn't called with `self`.
+
+
+Checking multiple calls with mock
+=================================
+
+mock has a nice API for making assertions about how your mock objects are used.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock()
+    >>> mock.foo_bar.return_value = None
+    >>> mock.foo_bar('baz', spam='eggs')
+    >>> mock.foo_bar.assert_called_with('baz', spam='eggs')
+
+If your mock is only being called once you can use the
+:meth:`assert_called_once_with` method that also asserts that the
+:attr:`call_count` is one.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock.foo_bar.assert_called_once_with('baz', spam='eggs')
+    >>> mock.foo_bar()
+    >>> mock.foo_bar.assert_called_once_with('baz', spam='eggs')
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    AssertionError: Expected to be called once. Called 2 times.
+
+Both `assert_called_with` and `assert_called_once_with` make assertions about
+the *most recent* call. If your mock is going to be called several times, and
+you want to make assertions about *all* those calls you can use
+:attr:`~Mock.call_args_list`:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock(return_value=None)
+    >>> mock(1, 2, 3)
+    >>> mock(4, 5, 6)
+    >>> mock()
+    >>> mock.call_args_list
+    [call(1, 2, 3), call(4, 5, 6), call()]
+
+The :data:`call` helper makes it easy to make assertions about these calls. You
+can build up a list of expected calls and compare it to `call_args_list`. This
+looks remarkably similar to the repr of the `call_args_list`:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> expected = [call(1, 2, 3), call(4, 5, 6), call()]
+    >>> mock.call_args_list == expected
+    True
+
+
+Coping with mutable arguments
+=============================
+
+Another situation is rare, but can bite you, is when your mock is called with
+mutable arguments. `call_args` and `call_args_list` store *references* to the
+arguments. If the arguments are mutated by the code under test then you can no
+longer make assertions about what the values were when the mock was called.
+
+Here's some example code that shows the problem. Imagine the following functions
+defined in 'mymodule'::
+
+    def frob(val):
+        pass
+
+    def grob(val):
+        "First frob and then clear val"
+        frob(val)
+        val.clear()
+
+When we try to test that `grob` calls `frob` with the correct argument look
+what happens:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> with patch('mymodule.frob') as mock_frob:
+    ...     val = set([6])
+    ...     mymodule.grob(val)
+    ...
+    >>> val
+    set([])
+    >>> mock_frob.assert_called_with(set([6]))
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    AssertionError: Expected: ((set([6]),), {})
+    Called with: ((set([]),), {})
+
+One possibility would be for mock to copy the arguments you pass in. This
+could then cause problems if you do assertions that rely on object identity
+for equality.
+
+Here's one solution that uses the :attr:`side_effect`
+functionality. If you provide a `side_effect` function for a mock then
+`side_effect` will be called with the same args as the mock. This gives us an
+opportunity to copy the arguments and store them for later assertions. In this
+example I'm using *another* mock to store the arguments so that I can use the
+mock methods for doing the assertion. Again a helper function sets this up for
+me.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> from copy import deepcopy
+    >>> from mock import Mock, patch, DEFAULT
+    >>> def copy_call_args(mock):
+    ...     new_mock = Mock()
+    ...     def side_effect(*args, **kwargs):
+    ...         args = deepcopy(args)
+    ...         kwargs = deepcopy(kwargs)
+    ...         new_mock(*args, **kwargs)
+    ...         return DEFAULT
+    ...     mock.side_effect = side_effect
+    ...     return new_mock
+    ...
+    >>> with patch('mymodule.frob') as mock_frob:
+    ...     new_mock = copy_call_args(mock_frob)
+    ...     val = set([6])
+    ...     mymodule.grob(val)
+    ...
+    >>> new_mock.assert_called_with(set([6]))
+    >>> new_mock.call_args
+    call(set([6]))
+
+`copy_call_args` is called with the mock that will be called. It returns a new
+mock that we do the assertion on. The `side_effect` function makes a copy of
+the args and calls our `new_mock` with the copy.
+
+.. note::
+
+    If your mock is only going to be used once there is an easier way of
+    checking arguments at the point they are called. You can simply do the
+    checking inside a `side_effect` function.
+
+    .. doctest::
+
+        >>> def side_effect(arg):
+        ...     assert arg == set([6])
+        ...
+        >>> mock = Mock(side_effect=side_effect)
+        >>> mock(set([6]))
+        >>> mock(set())
+        Traceback (most recent call last):
+            ...
+        AssertionError
+
+An alternative approach is to create a subclass of `Mock` or `MagicMock` that
+copies (using `copy.deepcopy
+<http://docs.python.org/library/copy.html#copy.deepcopy>`_) the arguments.
+Here's an example implementation:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> from copy import deepcopy
+    >>> class CopyingMock(MagicMock):
+    ...     def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
+    ...         args = deepcopy(args)
+    ...         kwargs = deepcopy(kwargs)
+    ...         return super(CopyingMock, self).__call__(*args, **kwargs)
+    ...
+    >>> c = CopyingMock(return_value=None)
+    >>> arg = set()
+    >>> c(arg)
+    >>> arg.add(1)
+    >>> c.assert_called_with(set())
+    >>> c.assert_called_with(arg)
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    AssertionError: Expected call: mock(set([1]))
+    Actual call: mock(set([]))
+    >>> c.foo
+    <CopyingMock name='mock.foo' id='...'>
+
+When you subclass `Mock` or `MagicMock` all dynamically created attributes,
+and the `return_value` will use your subclass automatically. That means all
+children of a `CopyingMock` will also have the type `CopyingMock`.
+
+
+Raising exceptions on attribute access
+======================================
+
+You can use :class:`PropertyMock` to mimic the behaviour of properties. This
+includes raising exceptions when an attribute is accessed.
+
+Here's an example raising a `ValueError` when the 'foo' attribute is accessed:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> m = MagicMock()
+    >>> p = PropertyMock(side_effect=ValueError)
+    >>> type(m).foo = p
+    >>> m.foo
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+    ....
+    ValueError
+
+Because every mock object has its own type, a new subclass of whichever mock
+class you're using, all mock objects are isolated from each other. You can
+safely attach properties (or other descriptors or whatever you want in fact)
+to `type(mock)` without affecting other mock objects.
+
+
+Multiple calls with different effects
+=====================================
+
+.. note::
+
+    In mock 1.0 the handling of iterable `side_effect` was changed. Any
+    exceptions in the iterable will be raised instead of returned.
+
+Handling code that needs to behave differently on subsequent calls during the
+test can be tricky. For example you may have a function that needs to raise
+an exception the first time it is called but returns a response on the second
+call (testing retry behaviour).
+
+One approach is to use a :attr:`side_effect` function that replaces itself. The
+first time it is called the `side_effect` sets a new `side_effect` that will
+be used for the second call. It then raises an exception:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> def side_effect(*args):
+    ...   def second_call(*args):
+    ...     return 'response'
+    ...   mock.side_effect = second_call
+    ...   raise Exception('boom')
+    ...
+    >>> mock = Mock(side_effect=side_effect)
+    >>> mock('first')
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    Exception: boom
+    >>> mock('second')
+    'response'
+    >>> mock.assert_called_with('second')
+
+Another perfectly valid way would be to pop return values from a list. If the
+return value is an exception, raise it instead of returning it:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> returns = [Exception('boom'), 'response']
+    >>> def side_effect(*args):
+    ...   result = returns.pop(0)
+    ...   if isinstance(result, Exception):
+    ...     raise result
+    ...   return result
+    ...
+    >>> mock = Mock(side_effect=side_effect)
+    >>> mock('first')
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    Exception: boom
+    >>> mock('second')
+    'response'
+    >>> mock.assert_called_with('second')
+
+Which approach you prefer is a matter of taste. The first approach is actually
+a line shorter but maybe the second approach is more readable.
+
+
+Nesting Patches
+===============
+
+Using patch as a context manager is nice, but if you do multiple patches you
+can end up with nested with statements indenting further and further to the
+right:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class MyTest(TestCase):
+    ...
+    ...     def test_foo(self):
+    ...         with patch('mymodule.Foo') as mock_foo:
+    ...             with patch('mymodule.Bar') as mock_bar:
+    ...                 with patch('mymodule.Spam') as mock_spam:
+    ...                     assert mymodule.Foo is mock_foo
+    ...                     assert mymodule.Bar is mock_bar
+    ...                     assert mymodule.Spam is mock_spam
+    ...
+    >>> original = mymodule.Foo
+    >>> MyTest('test_foo').test_foo()
+    >>> assert mymodule.Foo is original
+
+With unittest2_ `cleanup` functions and the :ref:`start-and-stop` we can
+achieve the same effect without the nested indentation. A simple helper
+method, `create_patch`, puts the patch in place and returns the created mock
+for us:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class MyTest(TestCase):
+    ...
+    ...     def create_patch(self, name):
+    ...         patcher = patch(name)
+    ...         thing = patcher.start()
+    ...         self.addCleanup(patcher.stop)
+    ...         return thing
+    ...
+    ...     def test_foo(self):
+    ...         mock_foo = self.create_patch('mymodule.Foo')
+    ...         mock_bar = self.create_patch('mymodule.Bar')
+    ...         mock_spam = self.create_patch('mymodule.Spam')
+    ...
+    ...         assert mymodule.Foo is mock_foo
+    ...         assert mymodule.Bar is mock_bar
+    ...         assert mymodule.Spam is mock_spam
+    ...
+    >>> original = mymodule.Foo
+    >>> MyTest('test_foo').run()
+    >>> assert mymodule.Foo is original
+
+
+Mocking a dictionary with MagicMock
+===================================
+
+You may want to mock a dictionary, or other container object, recording all
+access to it whilst having it still behave like a dictionary.
+
+We can do this with :class:`MagicMock`, which will behave like a dictionary,
+and using :data:`~Mock.side_effect` to delegate dictionary access to a real
+underlying dictionary that is under our control.
+
+When the `__getitem__` and `__setitem__` methods of our `MagicMock` are called
+(normal dictionary access) then `side_effect` is called with the key (and in
+the case of `__setitem__` the value too). We can also control what is returned.
+
+After the `MagicMock` has been used we can use attributes like
+:data:`~Mock.call_args_list` to assert about how the dictionary was used:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> my_dict = {'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'c': 3}
+    >>> def getitem(name):
+    ...      return my_dict[name]
+    ...
+    >>> def setitem(name, val):
+    ...     my_dict[name] = val
+    ...
+    >>> mock = MagicMock()
+    >>> mock.__getitem__.side_effect = getitem
+    >>> mock.__setitem__.side_effect = setitem
+
+.. note::
+
+    An alternative to using `MagicMock` is to use `Mock` and *only* provide
+    the magic methods you specifically want:
+
+    .. doctest::
+
+        >>> mock = Mock()
+        >>> mock.__setitem__ = Mock(side_effect=getitem)
+        >>> mock.__getitem__ = Mock(side_effect=setitem)
+
+    A *third* option is to use `MagicMock` but passing in `dict` as the `spec`
+    (or `spec_set`) argument so that the `MagicMock` created only has
+    dictionary magic methods available:
+
+    .. doctest::
+
+        >>> mock = MagicMock(spec_set=dict)
+        >>> mock.__getitem__.side_effect = getitem
+        >>> mock.__setitem__.side_effect = setitem
+
+With these side effect functions in place, the `mock` will behave like a normal
+dictionary but recording the access. It even raises a `KeyError` if you try
+to access a key that doesn't exist.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock['a']
+    1
+    >>> mock['c']
+    3
+    >>> mock['d']
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    KeyError: 'd'
+    >>> mock['b'] = 'fish'
+    >>> mock['d'] = 'eggs'
+    >>> mock['b']
+    'fish'
+    >>> mock['d']
+    'eggs'
+
+After it has been used you can make assertions about the access using the normal
+mock methods and attributes:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock.__getitem__.call_args_list
+    [call('a'), call('c'), call('d'), call('b'), call('d')]
+    >>> mock.__setitem__.call_args_list
+    [call('b', 'fish'), call('d', 'eggs')]
+    >>> my_dict
+    {'a': 1, 'c': 3, 'b': 'fish', 'd': 'eggs'}
+
+
+Mock subclasses and their attributes
+====================================
+
+There are various reasons why you might want to subclass `Mock`. One reason
+might be to add helper methods. Here's a silly example:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class MyMock(MagicMock):
+    ...     def has_been_called(self):
+    ...         return self.called
+    ...
+    >>> mymock = MyMock(return_value=None)
+    >>> mymock
+    <MyMock id='...'>
+    >>> mymock.has_been_called()
+    False
+    >>> mymock()
+    >>> mymock.has_been_called()
+    True
+
+The standard behaviour for `Mock` instances is that attributes and the return
+value mocks are of the same type as the mock they are accessed on. This ensures
+that `Mock` attributes are `Mocks` and `MagicMock` attributes are `MagicMocks`
+[#]_. So if you're subclassing to add helper methods then they'll also be
+available on the attributes and return value mock of instances of your
+subclass.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mymock.foo
+    <MyMock name='mock.foo' id='...'>
+    >>> mymock.foo.has_been_called()
+    False
+    >>> mymock.foo()
+    <MyMock name='mock.foo()' id='...'>
+    >>> mymock.foo.has_been_called()
+    True
+
+Sometimes this is inconvenient. For example, `one user
+<https://code.google.com/p/mock/issues/detail?id=105>`_ is subclassing mock to
+created a `Twisted adaptor
+<http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/11.0.0/api/twisted.python.components.html>`_.
+Having this applied to attributes too actually causes errors.
+
+`Mock` (in all its flavours) uses a method called `_get_child_mock` to create
+these "sub-mocks" for attributes and return values. You can prevent your
+subclass being used for attributes by overriding this method. The signature is
+that it takes arbitrary keyword arguments (`**kwargs`) which are then passed
+onto the mock constructor:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Subclass(MagicMock):
+    ...     def _get_child_mock(self, **kwargs):
+    ...         return MagicMock(**kwargs)
+    ...
+    >>> mymock = Subclass()
+    >>> mymock.foo
+    <MagicMock name='mock.foo' id='...'>
+    >>> assert isinstance(mymock, Subclass)
+    >>> assert not isinstance(mymock.foo, Subclass)
+    >>> assert not isinstance(mymock(), Subclass)
+
+.. [#] An exception to this rule are the non-callable mocks. Attributes use the
+    callable variant because otherwise non-callable mocks couldn't have callable
+    methods.
+
+
+Mocking imports with patch.dict
+===============================
+
+One situation where mocking can be hard is where you have a local import inside
+a function. These are harder to mock because they aren't using an object from
+the module namespace that we can patch out.
+
+Generally local imports are to be avoided. They are sometimes done to prevent
+circular dependencies, for which there is *usually* a much better way to solve
+the problem (refactor the code) or to prevent "up front costs" by delaying the
+import. This can also be solved in better ways than an unconditional local
+import (store the module as a class or module attribute and only do the import
+on first use).
+
+That aside there is a way to use `mock` to affect the results of an import.
+Importing fetches an *object* from the `sys.modules` dictionary. Note that it
+fetches an *object*, which need not be a module. Importing a module for the
+first time results in a module object being put in `sys.modules`, so usually
+when you import something you get a module back. This need not be the case
+however.
+
+This means you can use :func:`patch.dict` to *temporarily* put a mock in place
+in `sys.modules`. Any imports whilst this patch is active will fetch the mock.
+When the patch is complete (the decorated function exits, the with statement
+body is complete or `patcher.stop()` is called) then whatever was there
+previously will be restored safely.
+
+Here's an example that mocks out the 'fooble' module.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock()
+    >>> with patch.dict('sys.modules', {'fooble': mock}):
+    ...    import fooble
+    ...    fooble.blob()
+    ...
+    <Mock name='mock.blob()' id='...'>
+    >>> assert 'fooble' not in sys.modules
+    >>> mock.blob.assert_called_once_with()
+
+As you can see the `import fooble` succeeds, but on exit there is no 'fooble'
+left in `sys.modules`.
+
+This also works for the `from module import name` form:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock()
+    >>> with patch.dict('sys.modules', {'fooble': mock}):
+    ...    from fooble import blob
+    ...    blob.blip()
+    ...
+    <Mock name='mock.blob.blip()' id='...'>
+    >>> mock.blob.blip.assert_called_once_with()
+
+With slightly more work you can also mock package imports:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> mock = Mock()
+    >>> modules = {'package': mock, 'package.module': mock.module}
+    >>> with patch.dict('sys.modules', modules):
+    ...    from package.module import fooble
+    ...    fooble()
+    ...
+    <Mock name='mock.module.fooble()' id='...'>
+    >>> mock.module.fooble.assert_called_once_with()
+
+
+Tracking order of calls and less verbose call assertions
+========================================================
+
+The :class:`Mock` class allows you to track the *order* of method calls on
+your mock objects through the :attr:`~Mock.method_calls` attribute. This
+doesn't allow you to track the order of calls between separate mock objects,
+however we can use :attr:`~Mock.mock_calls` to achieve the same effect.
+
+Because mocks track calls to child mocks in `mock_calls`, and accessing an
+arbitrary attribute of a mock creates a child mock, we can create our separate
+mocks from a parent one. Calls to those child mock will then all be recorded,
+in order, in the `mock_calls` of the parent:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> manager = Mock()
+    >>> mock_foo = manager.foo
+    >>> mock_bar = manager.bar
+
+    >>> mock_foo.something()
+    <Mock name='mock.foo.something()' id='...'>
+    >>> mock_bar.other.thing()
+    <Mock name='mock.bar.other.thing()' id='...'>
+
+    >>> manager.mock_calls
+    [call.foo.something(), call.bar.other.thing()]
+
+We can then assert about the calls, including the order, by comparing with
+the `mock_calls` attribute on the manager mock:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> expected_calls = [call.foo.something(), call.bar.other.thing()]
+    >>> manager.mock_calls == expected_calls
+    True
+
+If `patch` is creating, and putting in place, your mocks then you can attach
+them to a manager mock using the :meth:`~Mock.attach_mock` method. After
+attaching calls will be recorded in `mock_calls` of the manager.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> manager = MagicMock()
+    >>> with patch('mymodule.Class1') as MockClass1:
+    ...     with patch('mymodule.Class2') as MockClass2:
+    ...         manager.attach_mock(MockClass1, 'MockClass1')
+    ...         manager.attach_mock(MockClass2, 'MockClass2')
+    ...         MockClass1().foo()
+    ...         MockClass2().bar()
+    ...
+    <MagicMock name='mock.MockClass1().foo()' id='...'>
+    <MagicMock name='mock.MockClass2().bar()' id='...'>
+    >>> manager.mock_calls
+    [call.MockClass1(),
+     call.MockClass1().foo(),
+     call.MockClass2(),
+     call.MockClass2().bar()]
+
+If many calls have been made, but you're only interested in a particular
+sequence of them then an alternative is to use the
+:meth:`~Mock.assert_has_calls` method. This takes a list of calls (constructed
+with the :data:`call` object). If that sequence of calls are in
+:attr:`~Mock.mock_calls` then the assert succeeds.
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> m = MagicMock()
+    >>> m().foo().bar().baz()
+    <MagicMock name='mock().foo().bar().baz()' id='...'>
+    >>> m.one().two().three()
+    <MagicMock name='mock.one().two().three()' id='...'>
+    >>> calls = call.one().two().three().call_list()
+    >>> m.assert_has_calls(calls)
+
+Even though the chained call `m.one().two().three()` aren't the only calls that
+have been made to the mock, the assert still succeeds.
+
+Sometimes a mock may have several calls made to it, and you are only interested
+in asserting about *some* of those calls. You may not even care about the
+order. In this case you can pass `any_order=True` to `assert_has_calls`:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> m = MagicMock()
+    >>> m(1), m.two(2, 3), m.seven(7), m.fifty('50')
+    (...)
+    >>> calls = [call.fifty('50'), call(1), call.seven(7)]
+    >>> m.assert_has_calls(calls, any_order=True)
+
+
+More complex argument matching
+==============================
+
+Using the same basic concept as `ANY` we can implement matchers to do more
+complex assertions on objects used as arguments to mocks.
+
+Suppose we expect some object to be passed to a mock that by default
+compares equal based on object identity (which is the Python default for user
+defined classes). To use :meth:`~Mock.assert_called_with` we would need to pass
+in the exact same object. If we are only interested in some of the attributes
+of this object then we can create a matcher that will check these attributes
+for us.
+
+You can see in this example how a 'standard' call to `assert_called_with` isn't
+sufficient:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Foo(object):
+    ...     def __init__(self, a, b):
+    ...         self.a, self.b = a, b
+    ...
+    >>> mock = Mock(return_value=None)
+    >>> mock(Foo(1, 2))
+    >>> mock.assert_called_with(Foo(1, 2))
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    AssertionError: Expected: call(<__main__.Foo object at 0x...>)
+    Actual call: call(<__main__.Foo object at 0x...>)
+
+A comparison function for our `Foo` class might look something like this:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> def compare(self, other):
+    ...     if not type(self) == type(other):
+    ...         return False
+    ...     if self.a != other.a:
+    ...         return False
+    ...     if self.b != other.b:
+    ...         return False
+    ...     return True
+    ...
+
+And a matcher object that can use comparison functions like this for its
+equality operation would look something like this:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> class Matcher(object):
+    ...     def __init__(self, compare, some_obj):
+    ...         self.compare = compare
+    ...         self.some_obj = some_obj
+    ...     def __eq__(self, other):
+    ...         return self.compare(self.some_obj, other)
+    ...
+
+Putting all this together:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> match_foo = Matcher(compare, Foo(1, 2))
+    >>> mock.assert_called_with(match_foo)
+
+The `Matcher` is instantiated with our compare function and the `Foo` object
+we want to compare against. In `assert_called_with` the `Matcher` equality
+method will be called, which compares the object the mock was called with
+against the one we created our matcher with. If they match then
+`assert_called_with` passes, and if they don't an `AssertionError` is raised:
+
+.. doctest::
+
+    >>> match_wrong = Matcher(compare, Foo(3, 4))
+    >>> mock.assert_called_with(match_wrong)
+    Traceback (most recent call last):
+        ...
+    AssertionError: Expected: ((<Matcher object at 0x...>,), {})
+    Called with: ((<Foo object at 0x...>,), {})
+
+With a bit of tweaking you could have the comparison function raise the
+`AssertionError` directly and provide a more useful failure message.
+
+As of version 1.5, the Python testing library `PyHamcrest
+<http://pypi.python.org/pypi/PyHamcrest>`_ provides similar functionality,
+that may be useful here, in the form of its equality matcher
+(`hamcrest.library.integration.match_equality
+<http://packages.python.org/PyHamcrest/integration.html#hamcrest.library.integration.match_equality>`_).
+
+
+Less verbose configuration of mock objects
+==========================================
+
+This recipe, for easier configuration of mock objects, is now part of `Mock`.
+See the :meth:`~Mock.configure_mock` method.
+
+
+Matching any argument in assertions
+===================================
+
+This example is now built in to mock. See :data:`ANY`.
+
+
+Mocking Properties
+==================
+
+This example is now built in to mock. See :class:`PropertyMock`.
+
+
+Mocking open
+============
+
+This example is now built in to mock. See :func:`mock_open`.
+
+
+Mocks without some attributes
+=============================
+
+This example is now built in to mock. See :ref:`deleting-attributes`.