test(checker): add importchecker test #2042
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2042 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 88.75% 60.44% -28.32%
===========================================
Files 200 181 -19
Lines 10933 10372 -561
===========================================
- Hits 9704 6269 -3435
- Misses 1229 4103 +2874
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Latency summaryCurrent PR yields:
Breakdown
Backed by latency-tracking. Further commits will update this comment. |
Yongxuanzhang
requested review from
nan-wang,
imsergiy,
cristianmtr,
JoanFM and
maximilianwerk
and removed request for
imsergiy
| tmp_exec_driver = os.path.join(str(tmpdir), 'tmp_driver.yml') | ||
| args.summary_exec = tmp_exec_file | ||
| args.summary_driver = tmp_exec_driver | ||
| ImportChecker(args) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I want to test ImportChecker from checker.py and _print_dep_tree_rst from importer.py. ImportChecker will call _print_dep_tree_rst to write executors and drivers to tmp files.
What could be the best practice do you think to test it?
Like, assert the content in text files? Or is it possible to use mock?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
did not u say it is not used anywhere?
U could do check a little the text file or use a mock and see the arguments passed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought it's a private function, but actually, it's used outside of that file. And usually, we will do Jina check without these summary_exec, summary_driver. I think that's the reason they are not tested before. But they offer the ability to output executors, drivers to files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so lets test the output of the functionality
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure. Will do!
No description provided.