Test installer #57
Test installer #57
Conversation
load dictionary during instatiation to reduce time
apertium_core clone wrapper_optimise branch lttoolbox: build wrapper until package isnt updated
apertium/utils.py
Outdated
| elif 'apertium-postchunk' == command[0]: | ||
| obj = apertium_core.apertium() | ||
| obj.postchunk_text(arg, command[1], command[2], input_file.name, output_file.name) | ||
| obj = apertium_core.postchunk(command[1], command[2]) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is fine to start off but we really need to cache all these to get any benefit.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how about functools.lru_cache, available in python https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html?highlight=lru_cache#functools.lru_cache
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't mean caching the result of postchunk/interchunk/etc. I mean keeping the objects around to avoid initialization costs.
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 388
💛 - Coveralls |
| @@ -69,6 +72,24 @@ def test_uninstalled_mode(self): | |||
| apertium.generate('spa', 'cat<n><pl>') | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class TestInstallation(unittest.TestCase): | |||
| def test_apertium_base(self): | |||
| apertium.installer.install_apertium() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test should probably ensure that lt-proc doesn't already exist. It should also test for all the binaries, not just lt-proc?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This test should probably ensure that
lt-procdoesn't already exist.
Can you explain a bit more
It should also test for all the binaries, not just
lt-proc?
Since the installer is installing apertium-all-dev, I am assuming all of the binaries to be available in the packages. I am checking existence of lt-proc as its the most used binary
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd prefer all the ones we use to be tested. Tests should assume as little as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even though I've over ridden the constructor, installation process is repeated 8 times while running tests https://travis-ci.com/apertium/apertium-python/jobs/221738455#L1714. What's the reason behind this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not really sure but you don't need to make each assert its own test. They can all be one test where you loop through the binaries you expect. Also, I would check that they don't exist before installation. Otherwise, you can't be certain your installation actually did anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The binaries would be available after running the installer. Should I create an uninstaller as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm... I don't think there's a good way to test this particular aspect then. Or at least I can't think of one atm. I don't think it's worth the effort to create an uninstaller.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you add a comment that notes that this test doesn't actually test as much as it might seem to?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the current name is misleading. Should I rename it to test_apertium_binaries
installer.pylttoolboxuntil package is updated