Tryton simple business test scenario with proteus

Tryton simple business test scenario with proteus.

Start tests with:

$ python -m doctest -v scenario_simple.rst

N.B. Proteus must be in PYTHONPATH or linked into the tests/ directory.

For now you need to patch the Proteus client library with the patch given by this review:
http://codereview.appspot.com/2586041

[udono, 2010-10-18 13:52:48]

On my installation all steps working well, but invoice creation fails. Maybe you
find the mistake?

[pheller, 2010-10-18 14:29:06]

Looks pretty good.

Once you're finished with the technical review, I'm happy to proofread and edit
the prose for grammatical correctness, if you wish.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst
File scenario_simple.rst (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode507
scenario_simple.rst:507: >>> (supplier_tax,) = Tax.find([
You've already defined supplier_tax and customer_tax at lines 481 and 485...  do
you need to do it again?

[yangoon1, 2010-10-18 14:31:25]

Will test later

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst
File scenario_simple.rst (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode2
scenario_simple.rst:2: Simple Busines Scenarios
Business

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode11
scenario_simple.rst:11: recipe. This implies, that each step could need one or
more predessessing
predecessing

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode17
scenario_simple.rst:17: The testing aspect of this document should ensure that
Tryton runs as an
runs the way

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode18
scenario_simple.rst:18: end user would expect it to run in a defined setup.
These tests dependend
depend

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode20
scenario_simple.rst:20: No other modules are expected.
required.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode23
scenario_simple.rst:23: business procedures. Tests are restricted to successful
try
are restricted to test the success...

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode24
scenario_simple.rst:24: out given functionalities and beating user level errors
and
and defeat user level errors...

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode28
scenario_simple.rst:28: Business level tests should be usefull to detect
regressions in main
useful

[bch, 2010-10-18 14:52:18]

Haven't you any traceback when the invoice creation fail ?

[udono, 2010-10-18 15:30:35]

On 2010/10/18 14:52:18, bch wrote:
> Haven't you any traceback when the invoice creation fail ?
Yes, I have:

>>> invoice.lines.append(invoice_line1)




Trying:
    invoice.lines.append(invoice_line1)
Expecting nothing
**********************************************************************
File "setup.rst", line 666, in scenario_simple.rst
Failed example:
    invoice.lines.append(invoice_line1)
Exception raised:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<console>", line 1, in <module>
  File "proteus/__init__.py", line 192, in append
    self._changed()
  File "proteus/__init__.py", line 179, in _changed
    self.parent._on_change(self.parent_field_name)
  File "proteus/__init__.py", line 536, in _on_change
    self._set_on_change(field, value)
  File "proteus/__init__.py", line 504, in _set_on_change
    list.append(getattr(self, field), relation(*vals))
TypeError: __init__() takes at most 2 arguments (11 given)

Here I checked the values in proteus/__init__.py:
>>> field, value: taxes {'account': 8, 'description': u'Received tax', 'manual':
False, 'tax': 1, 'base_sign': Decimal('1.0'), 'tax_code': 5, 'amount':
Decimal('20.00'), 'base': Decimal('100.00'), 'base_code': 2, 'tax_sign':
Decimal('1.0')}

Then following some other (dependend) errors

[udono, 2010-10-18 15:45:21]

On 2010/10/18 14:29:06, pheller wrote:
> Looks pretty good.
> 
> Once you're finished with the technical review, I'm happy to proofread and
edit
> the prose for grammatical correctness, if you wish.
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst
> File scenario_simple.rst (right):
> 
> http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode507
> scenario_simple.rst:507: >>> (supplier_tax,) = Tax.find([
> You've already defined supplier_tax and customer_tax at lines 481 and 485... 
do
> you need to do it again?

It seems I need to have them goth time, because I get problems with an error
about supplier_tax_parent is None or something like this.

[udono, 2010-10-19 08:41:21]

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst
File scenario_simple.rst (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode2
scenario_simple.rst:2: Simple Busines Scenarios
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> Business

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode11
scenario_simple.rst:11: recipe. This implies, that each step could need one or
more predessessing
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> predecessing

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode17
scenario_simple.rst:17: The testing aspect of this document should ensure that
Tryton runs as an
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> runs the way

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode18
scenario_simple.rst:18: end user would expect it to run in a defined setup.
These tests dependend
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> depend

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode20
scenario_simple.rst:20: No other modules are expected.
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> required.
I put No other modules are required or expected.

I wanted to say, that this script is solely for testing www.tryton.org.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode23
scenario_simple.rst:23: business procedures. Tests are restricted to successful
try
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> are restricted to test the success...

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode24
scenario_simple.rst:24: out given functionalities and beating user level errors
and
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> and defeat user level errors...

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode28
scenario_simple.rst:28: Business level tests should be usefull to detect
regressions in main
On 2010/10/18 14:31:25, yangoon wrote:
> useful

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/2550042/diff/3001/scenario_simple.rst#newcode507
scenario_simple.rst:507: >>> (supplier_tax,) = Tax.find([
On 2010/10/18 14:29:06, pheller wrote:
> You've already defined supplier_tax and customer_tax at lines 481 and 485... 
do
> you need to do it again?
Yes, for the moment we need to use an object only once ina a one2many or
many2many. See
http://www.tryton.org/~irclog/2010-10-18.log.html#t2010-10-18_22:31

[udono, 2010-10-21 19:34:03]

On 2010/10/18 14:52:18, bch wrote:
> Haven't you any traceback when the invoice creation fail ?
All is ok now. Invoice is created.

[udono, 2010-10-21 19:36:06]

On 2010/10/18 15:45:21, udono wrote:
> On 2010/10/18 14:29:06, pheller wrote:
> > Once you're finished with the technical review, I'm happy to proofread and
> edit
> > the prose for grammatical correctness, if you wish.

This would be great! But maybe wait a little bit, since the general idea is
still unclear.

[Paul J Stevens, 2010-10-21 20:08:12]

> This would be great! But maybe wait a little bit, since the general idea is
> still unclear.

I love this shit!

- fully automated client testing, plus: 
- the best documentation of the programming model I've seen to date.

muchas gracias!