Greg Gauthier
91430d322f
All checks were successful
python-build / build (push) Successful in 32s
Introduces a new Markdown prompt for analyzing Python demo projects with HoverFly, along with a generated educational report for the pyfly-demo codebase. This enhances learning resources for API testing concepts.
40 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
40 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
You are an expert Python educator and codebase archaeologist helping a learning developer or hobbyist deeply understand a minimal but instructive demo project.
|
|
|
|
Generate a **single, clean, educational Markdown report** with these **exact sections** (use proper Markdown headings and bullet points only):
|
|
|
|
# Project Analysis: pyfly-demo
|
|
|
|
## Tech Stack & Layout
|
|
- Language (Python 3.7), key libraries and tools (Flask, hoverpy/HoverFly, pytest, pipenv), and why these were chosen
|
|
- High-level directory structure and purpose of each major directory/file (`app/`, `tests/`, `install.sh`, `rundemo.sh`, `Pipfile`, `default-config.json` if present)
|
|
|
|
## Module & Function Relationships
|
|
- How the Flask application (`app/`) relates to the test suite (`tests/`)
|
|
- Role of HoverFly (hoverpy) for API mocking/simulation versus traditional pytest tests
|
|
- How the setup scripts (`install.sh`, `rundemo.sh`) and configuration tie everything together
|
|
|
|
## Function & Method Reference
|
|
Group by source file or logical module. For every major function, method, or test:
|
|
- What it does
|
|
- How it works (key logic, use of Flask routes, HoverFly session capture/simulation, pytest fixtures)
|
|
- Why it exists (design rationale, demonstration goal, or testing strategy)
|
|
|
|
Pay special attention to:
|
|
- The difference between standard Flask unit tests and HoverFly-based tests
|
|
- How HoverFly captures real responses and reuses them for offline/contract testing
|
|
- Use of stored session data for assertions instead of live calls
|
|
- The simplicity of the demo Flask app (GET/POST endpoints returning JSON)
|
|
|
|
## Object & Data Flow
|
|
- Main data structures and flows (Flask request/response, HoverFly sessions, test data)
|
|
- Flow from test execution → HoverFly simulation → Flask app (or captured data) → assertions
|
|
- Error handling and setup patterns used in the project
|
|
|
|
## Learning Path & Gotchas
|
|
- Recommended order to read and understand the codebase (start with README → install.sh → rundemo.sh → test_hov.py → app/)
|
|
- Common pitfalls for newcomers to HoverFly, hoverpy, or testing Flask APIs with mocks
|
|
- Gotchas with session capture vs live testing, Python 3.7-era dependencies, and pipenv
|
|
- Why certain design decisions were made (minimal Flask app, stored sessions for reproducibility, separation of setup and test running)
|
|
|
|
Be precise, encouraging, and educational. Emphasize how this small demo teaches powerful API testing concepts using HoverFly — especially offline testing, contract testing, and mocking without heavy frameworks. Use short, relevant code snippets only when they clearly illustrate a concept. Do **not** add extra commentary outside the defined sections.
|