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

Coverage - Needs of more unit tests #89

Closed
olivier-stasse opened this issue Feb 3, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Coverage - Needs of more unit tests #89

olivier-stasse opened this issue Feb 3, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@olivier-stasse
Copy link
Member

Dear all,
To have a better view of the code state so that we can improve the release process,
I made the link to coveralls. I apologize for the rough process.
According https://coveralls.io/builds/4952648 they are three files which are not tested at all:
joint_planar.hpp joint_dense.hpp constraint.hpp.
It would be nice to have unit test related to those files.

@jcarpent
Copy link
Contributor

jcarpent commented Feb 3, 2016

Thanks Olivier for this great job!
Concerning those files, they are currently not used at least for joint_dense.hpp and constraint.hpp and are just pure interface.
I will do my best to integrate some unit test around joint_planar.hpp asap.

@jcarpent
Copy link
Contributor

jcarpent commented Feb 3, 2016

And also, all the python bindings are not tested at all. But it won't appear in the coverage test, because they are not compiled on travis.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants