Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve test coverage #81

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Mar 20, 2023
Merged

Improve test coverage #81

merged 12 commits into from
Mar 20, 2023

Conversation

jfrost-mo
Copy link
Member

Now we are measuring test coverage, it makes sense to improve it.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@jfrost-mo
Copy link
Member Author

Todo: Improve the way cubes are being compared in the write test, to make it deterministic and not randomly fail.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions

This comment was marked as outdated.

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage
Code coverage report

@jfrost-mo jfrost-mo marked this pull request as ready for review March 20, 2023 13:27
Use tempfile properly. It doesn't like it when we use a property of
the object in a context manager.
Fixes ambiguity around passing a cubelist to a function that takes a cube.
Also add some more comments. The aim here is to fix the random test failures.
Current syntax uses "|". "or" is not used. | is from 3.10 however, so
we instead fall back to the older syntax: typing.Union[a, b]
We don't know that we are going to use these, and can easily recreate
them if we do.
@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Coverage
Code coverage report

Copy link
Contributor

@jwarner8 jwarner8 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nice, all looks good eyeballing changelog

@jfrost-mo
Copy link
Member Author

I've got it to 100% code coverage, but realistically that is going to drop a bit when we start adding lots of code. But it makes sense to at least start high.

@jfrost-mo jfrost-mo merged commit ad13e8d into main Mar 20, 2023
@jfrost-mo jfrost-mo deleted the code-coverage-improvements branch March 20, 2023 13:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants