gh-89083: Add CLI tests for UUIDv{6,7,8}

[LamentXU123]

This PR add simple cli test cases to UUIDv6, v7, v8 added in #89083 , as well as a test case to UUID v1.

There are only one test cases for each, since they can't be customized through CLI.

Skipping news ;)

• Issue: Support UUIDv6, UUIDv7, and UUIDv8 from RFC 9562 #89083

[picnixz]

Can you:

• follow PEP-8 (1 blank line between functions)
• make a separate class that is only testing the CLI functionality please?

[LamentXU123]

follow PEP-8 (1 blank line between functions)
make a separate class that is only testing the CLI functionality please?

Done. Thanks!

Edited: btw, we've got tested like this:

classTestUUIDWithoutExtModule(BaseTestUUID, unittest.TestCase): uuid=py_uuid

In this current PR code, this test in redundant. I suggest maybe we could combine them together (?)

[LamentXU123]

Do we need all CAPS on term CLI?

[picnixz]

Just check how other classes testing CLIs are named.

[picnixz]

There is a lot of duplicated code. I would sugfgest having a single a single function that tests the expected outputs accordingly:

defdo_test_standalone_uuid(self, version): stdout=io.StringIO() withcontextlib.redirect_stdout(stdout): self.uuid.main() output=stdout.getvalue().strip() u=self.uuid.UUID(output) self.assertEqual(output, str(u)) self.assertEqual(u.version, version) @mock.patch.object(sys, "argv", ["", "-u", "uuid1"])deftest_uuid1(self): self.do_test_standalone_uuid(1)

and similar stuff for v6, v7 and v8.

[LamentXU123]

follow PEP-8 (1 blank line between functions)
make a separate class that is only testing the CLI functionality please?

Done. Thanks!

Edited: btw, we've got tested like this:

classTestUUIDWithoutExtModule(BaseTestUUID, unittest.TestCase): uuid=py_uuid

In this current PR code, this test in redundant. I suggest maybe we could combine them together (?)

In the test case of cli we've actually already tested UUID without ext moudle (?, I'm not quiet sure) So maybe combining them together will be better?

[picnixz]

Just check how other classes testing CLIs are named.

[picnixz]

In the test case of cli we've actually already tested UUID without ext moudle (?, I'm not quiet sure) So maybe combining them together will be better?

In this current PR code, this test in redundant. I suggest maybe we could combine them together (?)

It's not entirely redundant. However I see the issue. Two possibilities:

• Make the CLI test a mixin class that doesn't inherit from test case
• Create two subclasses that are test cases, one with the extension module, one without.

Or:

• Make CLI tests a mixin class that doesn't inhert from test cases, without a uuid field (you can add a dummy one just for autocompletion, but set it to None as it'll be subclassed later).
• Make TestUUIDWithoutExtModule and TestUUIDWithExtModule inherit from this mixin as well (in addition to BaseTestUUID).

[picnixz]

Ok, actually CommandLineTest is a more common name in the code base. Just use it, no need to mention UUID (search for "CommandLineTest" and you'll see)

[LamentXU123]

Ok, actually CommandLineTest is a more common name in the code base. Just use it, no need to mention UUID (search for "CommandLineTest" and you'll see)

The test classes before are named in testUUID* (which I think would be better if we add this prefix in this func). But yes CommandLineTest only is more common one in the code base so it's OK.

[LamentXU123]

Make the CLI test a mixin class that doesn't inherit from test case
Create two subclasses that are test cases, one with the extension module, one without.

This is better IMO. I've changed it.

[LamentXU123]

Thanks! Should we backport this to 3.14? The new UUIDs are added in that version

[miss-islington-app]

Thanks @LamentXU123 for the PR, and @picnixz for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.14.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

[bedevere-app]

GH-136576 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.14 branch.