Feature/test coverage

[samamorgan]

Increase test coverage

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 94.81% // Head: 95.51% // Increases project coverage by +0.69% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (2708384) compared to base (34dd435).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop      #42      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    94.81%   95.51%   +0.69%     
===========================================
  Files           32       34       +2     
  Lines         1409     1472      +63     
===========================================
+ Hits          1336     1406      +70     
+ Misses          73       66       -7     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
test/test_exception.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/test_util.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
welkin/util.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+13.51%)	⬆️
welkin/exceptions.py	100.00% <0.00%> (+16.66%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[edcohen08]

All LGTM! Left one question

[edcohen08]

would we want to have a test actually against Welkin or does it not matter?

[samamorgan]

test_exception does actually hit the Welkin API at https://api.live.welkincloud.io/{{ tenant }}/admin/users/me, which is a real endpoint that IIRC isn't allowed for API clients.

I'm pointing test_exception_no_json because I don't know of a Welkin endpoint that returns a blank or text-based response (it has happened, I just don't recall when), and httpbin.org is a tried-and-true test domain. This also illustrates how the underlying client can be used without the defined object models. IMO tests should also illustrate usage.