GeezerVison

Probably one method that the object should definitely have is wait_for_call(self, call, /, skip=0, timeout=None).

Thanks @Kentzo for putting this through. From conversations with @voidspace, @lisroach, @tirkarthi and in the issue tracker it seems that people wanted to go with having a different mock just for this use case, rather than trying to fold it into the existing one. Similar to what was done with AsyncMock.

Happy to re-evaluate it, but I guess that should be a conversation in the issue tracker.

Closing this PR for now, as it looks like @mariocj89 will be putting in another PR to take over from this.

@cjw296 Hmm, where was that discussion?

https://bugs.python.org/issue17013#msg352211
#16094

Looks like @mariocj89 's PR actually predates this one, I don't have a strong opinion on either, so happy to re-open this PR if you, @mariocj89, @tirkarthi, @voidspace and @lisroach want to discuss which PR to take forward.

Hi @Kentzo, this was initially discussed in https://bugs.python.org/issue17013#msg352211 and offlne in the core dev sprints with @voidspace, @lisroach and @tirkarthi when we put forward the other PR. @voidspace preferred to go down the path of having specialized mocks rather than having a mock have all the functionality. Similar to the asyncmock.

At some point I was asked to move the discussion to bugs.python. For the benefit of the future developers I believe it makes sense to point out the benefits of the new "class approach" there as well.

At some point I was asked to move the discussion to bugs.python. For the benefit of the future developers I believe it makes sense to point out the benefits of the new "class approach" there as well.

Absolutely, that's why I suggested that. The issue lays on the availability of committer time though. It might be a busy time right now.

Added implementation of the wait_for_call convenience method that can be used like this:

mock.method_1.called.wait_for_call(call(1, a=1), timeout=0.01)

@Kentzo - it's unclear where you've added this?

I guess PR is not updated because it's closed. The corresponding branch in my repo got updated.

Any chance for this PR to get reviewed?

Doesn't look like I can re-open this PR, so please submit a new one if you want anything reviewed. Please comment here with a link to the new one.

@mariocj89 - where did you get to with your approach?

There is an open PR that was reviewed but never re-reviewed after proposed changes here: #16094

@cjw296 #20759

Just noticed that I put wrong link above 🤦🏻‍♂️, fixed the comment.