scd4x: SCD4x CO2 Sensor - Initial Add #81
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #81 +/- ##
=======================================
+ Coverage 47.5% 48.0% +0.5%
=======================================
Files 87 88 +1
Lines 10935 11251 +316
=======================================
+ Hits 5197 5401 +204
- Misses 5542 5620 +78
- Partials 196 230 +34 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Thanks! Will look later. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ | |||
| # Sensirion SCD4x CO<sub>2</sub> Sensors | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any specific reason to not put this into doc.go? I would expect to read the doc from pkg.go.dev, so I would think it would be more discoverable by being there.
| @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@ | |||
| //go:build examples | |||
|
|
||
| // basic example program for scd4x sensors using this library. | ||
| // | ||
| // To execute this as a stand-alone program: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will already be presented correctly on pkg.go.dev, this is unnecessary. Otherwise we'd have to put this on every single examples?
|
|
||
| // Return the sensor readings in string format. | ||
| func (e *Env) String() string { | ||
| return fmt.Sprintf("Temperature: %s Humidity: %s CO2: %s", e.Temperature.String(), e.Humidity.String(), e.CO2.String()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI, .String() call are unnecessary when using %s, it will be called automatically. See point "5." at https://pkg.go.dev/fmt.
| {Addr: SensorAddress, W: []uint8{0x36, 0xf6}}, | ||
| {Addr: SensorAddress, W: []uint8{0x21, 0xb1}}} | ||
|
|
||
| func init() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another way would be to use TestMain as described at https://pkg.go.dev/testing#hdr-Main.
func TestMain(m *testing.M) {
flag.BoolVar(&liveDevice, "live", os.Getenv("SCD4X")!="", "Run unit test on a live device (a smoke test). Set automatically if env var SCD4X is set")
m.Run()
}
Generally I've put these into cmd smoketest but I don't mind much, this is fine. |
|
None of the comments are blocking so I'll merge right away, you can do a follow up if you want but it's not required. |
2 participants
@maruel I'm mostly liking they way I did the unit tests. I get live device, and playback testing without lots of extra code.
What are your thoughts? Do you have any ideas on making it more elegant?