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
Destination Output and Unit Testing #18
Conversation
Used type annotation and docstrings for new method.
I will test locally soon and initialize testing infrastructure. |
yup i am done with destination folder too |
i was asking what to do if destination folder is not available |
@salmannotkhan, could you elaborate on your solution in here please, e.g. code snippets and alike. I haven't seen your code, nor have I tested @jawrainey initial implementation - so I don't have an answer for you yet. Feel free to search and propose a few approaches you think would fix when a destination folder is not available. |
see this is my implementation |
I've successfully ran @jawrainey's implementation from his commits
Originally posted by @jawrainey in #14 (comment) Note that the option for an output path is |
so is it final? |
is the ~/ shortcuts are working?? |
@salmannotkhan -- the implementation is proposed, but @davidverweij suggested that we start writing unit tests (as per the title) so that we can validate our code and reduce the number of bugs introduced in the future.
|
so is there any bug in this output destination code? |
I'm not familier with unit test writing so |
Not that I can find -- can you find any? In short, we can write unit tests to check the above paths automatically, thus validating that our code works. I recommend that you read the following blog post for an overview of testing in python and if you want to learn more there's a good video tutorial on test-driven development. |
Yes - I meant closing #18, and @salmannotkhan can finish #22. |
Pulled forked repo from @jawrainey into output branch, to collaborate on this in a separate branch. Continues on PR #14