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

Introducing tests for clarity.data.utils module #88

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

ns-rse
Copy link
Contributor

@ns-rse ns-rse commented Oct 13, 2022

Starting work on writing unittests with the functions in the clarity.data.utils module.

Paramterised the tests and have also introduced try: ... except: statements to several of the functions and checked that these are correctly raised when passed incorrect data.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 13, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #88 (8281e75) into main (7736e7c) will decrease coverage by 0.31%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 8281e75 differs from pull request most recent head 32f6dc2. Consider uploading reports for the commit 32f6dc2 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #88      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.30%   83.98%   -0.32%     
==========================================
  Files          30       30              
  Lines        3370     3379       +9     
==========================================
- Hits         2841     2838       -3     
- Misses        529      541      +12     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
clarity/data/utils.py 100.00% <100.00%> (+6.25%) ⬆️
clarity/dataset/cec1_dataset.py 39.77% <0.00%> (-15.91%) ⬇️

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

@ns-rse
Copy link
Contributor Author

ns-rse commented Oct 13, 2022

I'm not entirely sure why coverage of cec1_data.py has decreased. The CodeCov report shows the lines that are no longer covered and suggests they are "indirect coverage changes" but I still can't see why this might have arisen. 🤷

The tests did fail under one of the Ubuntu environments the first time and I had to manually re-run perhaps that reduced the coverage in the initial report. 🤔

@ns-rse ns-rse marked this pull request as ready for review October 13, 2022 14:50
@ns-rse
Copy link
Contributor Author

ns-rse commented Nov 3, 2022

Redundant, changes are in #100

@ns-rse ns-rse closed this Nov 3, 2022
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.

1 participant