From 11a10970563b976223bfeec578d3a49e657e5fbd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Adam Parkin <pzelnip@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:18:40 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Add post on use of contextmanager

---
 content/ptotd-context-manager.md | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 89 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 content/ptotd-context-manager.md

diff --git a/content/ptotd-context-manager.md b/content/ptotd-context-manager.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7011255
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/ptotd-context-manager.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Title: Python Tip of the Day - contextlib.contextmanager
+Date: 2021-10-21 19:52
+Modified: 2021-10-21 19:52
+Category: Posts
+tags: python,pythonTipOfTheDay,contextmanager,testing
+cover: static/imgs/python-logo-master-v3-TM.png
+summary: How to use contextlib.contextmanager to combine context managers into one
+status: published
+
+So recently at work I had a test that did a fair bit of patching out of some
+dependent functions/classes.  The test looked something like:
+
+```python
+from unittest.mock import patch
+
+def test_patching_a_lot():
+    with patch("path.to.module.somefunction"
+    ), patch("path.to.another.function"), patch(
+        "some.third.party.function"
+    ), patch("you.get.the.idea"), patch(
+        "perhaps.there.shouldnt.be.so.much.patching"
+    ), patch(
+        "but.thats.a.topic.for.another.time"
+    ):
+        ... tbe body of the test ...
+```
+
+You might say "holy cow Adam, six patch calls is an awful lot", but that's a topic
+for another time.  I was stuck with this test as written.  The thing is though,
+I looked further on in the same test module and found another test with the
+exact same set of patch calls.  And I discovered both of these tests because I
+was about to have to add another test for the functionality I was adding, which would
+also have to do the same set of patching.
+
+Ok, Software Engineering 101, the DRY (or "Don't Repeat Yourself" principle): if
+you have the same set of lines repeated many (usually 3 or more) times, it's
+time to factor those lines out to a function so that if those lines need to
+change, you only make the change in one place, not many.  But the problem here
+is that these are context managers, so if I factored them out to a function,
+then the patching wouldn't be in effect in the test.  Example:
+
+```python
+from unittest.mock import patch
+
+def helper():
+    with patch("path.to.module.somefunction"
+    ), patch("path.to.another.function"), patch(
+        "some.third.party.function"
+    ), patch("you.get.the.idea"), patch(
+        "perhaps.there.shouldnt.be.so.much.patching"
+    ), patch(
+        "but.thats.a.topic.for.another.time"
+    ):
+        return
+
+def test_patching_a_lot():
+    helper()
+    ... tbe body of the test, but at this point, the context managers are no longer in effect ...
+```
+
+And that's where
+[`contextlib.contextmanager` from the standard library](https://docs.python.org/3/library/contextlib.html#contextlib.contextmanager)
+comes to the rescue.  With this
+gem from the standard library, you can decorate a function with the `@contextmanager` decorator,
+and that function is now a context manager that you can use in a `with` clause:
+
+```python
+from contextlib import contextmanager
+from unittest.mock import patch
+
+@contextmanager
+def helper():
+    with patch("path.to.module.somefunction"
+    ), patch("path.to.another.function"), patch(
+        "some.third.party.function"
+    ), patch("you.get.the.idea"), patch(
+        "perhaps.there.shouldnt.be.so.much.patching"
+    ), patch(
+        "but.thats.a.topic.for.another.time"
+    ):
+        yield
+
+def test_patching_a_lot():
+    with helper():
+        ... tbe body of the test, and all context managers in helper are in effect ...
+```
+
+Super handy, and very concise.  With this I was able to factor out all that
+gross patching to a single function.