A test of the `new' module. The new.code() test is fairly bogus since

I'm really not sure what the proper inputs are.  I do flex the
function call though by passing in arguments of the proper type.  I
don't try to exec the code object that gets returned!

1 files changed, 44 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Lib/test/test_new.py b/Lib/test/test_new.py
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..89edafd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Lib/test/test_new.py
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+import sys
+import new
+
+class Eggs:
+    def get_yolks(self):
+	return self.yolks
+
+m = new.module('Spam')
+m.Eggs = Eggs
+sys.modules['Spam'] = m
+import Spam
+
+def get_more_yolks(self):
+    return self.yolks + 3
+
+C = new.classobj('Spam', (Spam.Eggs,), {'get_more_yolks': get_more_yolks})
+c = new.instance(C, {'yolks': 3})
+
+def break_yolks(self):
+    self.yolks = self.yolks - 2
+im = new.instancemethod(break_yolks, c, C)
+
+if c.get_yolks() <> 3 and c.get_more_yolks() <> 6:
+    print 'Broken call of hand-crafted class instance'
+im()
+if c.get_yolks() <> 1 and c.get_more_yolks() <> 4:
+    print 'Broken call of hand-crafted instance method'
+
+codestr = '''
+a = 1
+b = 2
+c = a + b
+'''
+
+ccode = compile(codestr, '<string>', 'exec')
+g = {'c': 0, '__builtins__': __builtins__}
+# this test could be more robust
+func = new.function(ccode, g)
+func()
+if g['c'] <> 3:
+    print 'Could not create a proper function object'
+
+# bogus test of new.code()
+new.code(3, 3, 3, codestr, (), (), (), "<string>", "<name>")