ElmLintBear: Remove pragma: no cover

[yash-nisar]

Remove pragma: no cover in check_prerequisites by adding
a suitable test.

Closes #1996
Related to #1618

For short term contributors: we understand that getting your commits well
defined like we require is a hard task and takes some learning. If you
look to help without wanting to contribute long term there's no need
for you to learn this. Just drop us a message and we'll take care of brushing
up your stuff for merge!

Checklist

• I read the commit guidelines and I've followed
  them.
• I ran coala over my code locally. (All commits have to pass
  individually. It is not sufficient to have "fixup commits" on your PR,
  our bot will still report the issues for the previous commit.) You will
  likely receive a lot of bot comments and build failures if coala does not
  pass on every single commit!

After you submit your pull request, DO NOT click the 'Update Branch' button.
When asked for a rebase, consult coala.io/rebase
instead.

Please consider helping us by reviewing other peoples pull requests as well:

• pick up any PR at https://coala.io/review
• review it (check https://coala.io/reviewing for more info)
• if you are sure that it needs work, use cobot mark wip <URL> to get it out
  of the review queue.

The more you review, the more your score will grow at coala.io and we will
review your PRs faster!

[yash-nisar]

CC @jayvdb @Makman2

[Makman2]

use @patch on the test method. You can patch the which you imported from shutil, so the patch-module-string gets bears.elm.ElmLintBear.which. Then you don't need to change the import inside ElmLintBear, you just have to remove the pragma.

[yash-nisar]

Cool, on it. 👍

[gitmate-bot]

This file contains unused source code.

PyUnusedCodeBear, severity NORMAL, section flakes.

The issue can be fixed by applying the following patch:

--- a/tests/elm/ElmLintBearTest.py
+++ b/tests/elm/ElmLintBearTest.py
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-import shutil
 from queue import Queue
 from unittest.mock import patch
 

[yash-nisar]

Done @Makman2

[Nosferatul]

I think this pr is ready, what do you say @Makman2 ?

[Makman2]

yes looks good :)

[Makman2]

ack 9d2563a

[yash-nisar]

reack b1e3fbd

[yash-nisar]

I'm doing a minor change -> Replacing assertTrue with assertEqual as in the python docs.

This method should also be avoided when more specific methods are available (e.g. assertEqual(a, b) instead of assertTrue(a == b)), because they provide a better error message in case of failure.

[yash-nisar]

ack 0a25352

[yukiisbored]

@rultor please merge

[rultor]

@rultor please merge

@yukiisbored OK, I'll try to merge now. You can check the progress of the merge here

[rultor]

@rultor please merge

@yukiisbored Done! FYI, the full log is here (took me 2min)

[yash-nisar]

Thanks @yukiisbored 😄

[Makman2]

I'm doing a minor change -> Replacing assertTrue with assertEqual as in the python docs.

This method should also be avoided when more specific methods are available (e.g. assertEqual(a, b) instead of assertTrue(a == b)), because they provide a better error message in case of failure.

Actually the docs want you to avoid such operators like == to use in assertTrue. If your result should be true in the end, assertTrue is just effective^^ however like this is also okay^^

[Makman2]

But if you do a change, don't ack it yourself, it has to be reviewed again by someone else.

[yash-nisar]

Sure, will keep that in mind. I felt the need to change it because I missed a bug in my travis PR. Also, I've opened an issue with regard to this that will avoid future bugs 😉 :

In general, self.assertTrue('some_string') does not fail. So even if check_prerequisites() returns 'You are not connected to the internet.', the test will pass.
This can be avoided either by explicitly doing self.assertTrue(URLBear.check_prerequisites() == True) or by self.assertEqual(URLBear.check_prerequisites(), True). The latter one is more preferred.

[Makman2]

Actually the docs want you to avoid such operators like == to use in assertTrue. If your result should be true in the end, assertTrue is just effective^^ however like this is also okay^^

Nvm this, assertEqual(x, True) and assertTrue(x) are two different things. assertTrue invokes bool on the given expression, while assertEqual does not.

[yash-nisar]

Yeah, I agree 👍 . Just wanted to make sure things like these -> self.assertTrue('some_string') do not pass and are taken care of. 😉