python: add tests for railjson_generator

[shenriotpro]

fixes #6221

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (f2e96c2) 26.92% compared to head (2d801a5) 27.63%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...rator/railjson_generator/utils/routes_generator.py	80.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                dev    #6222      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     26.92%   27.63%   +0.71%     
  Complexity     2136     2136              
============================================
  Files           961      990      +29     
  Lines        124331   125811    +1480     
  Branches       2575     2575              
============================================
+ Hits          33477    34771    +1294     
- Misses        89364    89550     +186     
  Partials       1490     1490              

Flag	Coverage Δ
core	78.88% <ø> (ø)
editoast	75.46% <ø> (ø)
front	8.69% <ø> (ø)
gateway	2.50% <ø> (ø)
railjson_generator	87.43% <99.43%> (?)
tests	81.77% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Khoyo]

Otherwise LGTM.

As an aside, we should probably change the docstrings to an imperative tense (https://peps.python.org/pep-0257/#one-line-docstrings)

[shenriotpro]

Otherwise LGTM.

As an aside, we should probably change the docstrings to an imperative tense (https://peps.python.org/pep-0257/#one-line-docstrings)

Done, thanks.

[Tguisnet]

Thanks, good PR !
I have only one thing to say, the ascii diagrams giving details about the infra used for the tests are good.
However, for a better understanding, I think we could represent a switch with 'o' or something to have a better understanding of the infra.
Especially in the case for routes tests, to avoid thinking detectors are link between track sections.
And I have no particuliar suggestion, but the difference between the diagram crossing and the diagram double slip switch is not explicit too.

For the routes tests, maybe we should add a comment to know what kind of route we are trying to create, but it's not mandatory, so as you wish !

[shenriotpro]

Thanks, good PR ! I have only one thing to say, the ascii diagrams giving details about the infra used for the tests are good. However, for a better understanding, I think we could represent a switch with 'o' or something to have a better understanding of the infra. Especially in the case for routes tests, to avoid thinking detectors are link between track sections. And I have no particuliar suggestion, but the difference between the diagram crossing and the diagram double slip switch is not explicit too.

For the routes tests, maybe we should add a comment to know what kind of route we are trying to create, but it's not mandatory, so as you wish !

Thanks, I made a few adjustments.

[ElysaSrc]

Reviewed the CI part which looks good to me