next release - feature parity - high testing coverage

[leynier]

This pull request is to sync the current implementation (maintaining a Pythonic approach) with the gotrue-js implementation to get both libraries to have feature parity.

We also want to do as much testing as possible to get as high testing coverage as possible (the main difficulty with testing is in methods where mobile phone service is used).

Finally, if the objectives of this pull request are achieved, move the version to v1 and consider this library stable (as much as possible).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 84.46% // Head: 37.60% // Decreases project coverage by -46.87% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (66f3f3a) compared to base (52d4c8d).
Patch coverage: 57.02% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #148       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   84.46%   37.60%   -46.87%     
===========================================
  Files          14       25       +11     
  Lines        1056     2284     +1228     
===========================================
- Hits          892      859       -33     
- Misses        164     1425     +1261     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
gotrue/_sync/api.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-70.00%)	⬇️
gotrue/_sync/client.py	0.00% <ø> (-89.50%)	⬇️
gotrue/timer.py	27.58% <27.58%> (ø)
gotrue/_async/gotrue_client.py	30.10% <30.10%> (ø)
gotrue/_sync/gotrue_client.py	30.10% <30.10%> (ø)
gotrue/errors.py	72.54% <72.54%> (ø)
gotrue/helpers.py	80.00% <79.06%> (-20.00%)	⬇️
gotrue/_async/gotrue_base_api.py	93.02% <93.02%> (ø)
gotrue/_sync/gotrue_base_api.py	93.02% <93.02%> (ø)
gotrue/_async/gotrue_admin_api.py	93.93% <93.93%> (ø)
... and 15 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[odiseo0]

What are the parts that are not covered by tests?

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 20.57%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	1.87 ⭐	1.80 ⭐	-0.07 👍
Method Length	53.39 ⭐	65.79 🙂	12.40 👎
Working memory	4.98 ⭐	13.74 😞	8.76 👎
Quality	81.87% ⭐	61.30% 🙂	-20.57% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	3108	1925	-1183

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
gotrue/__init__.py	88.24% ⭐	90.29% ⭐	2.05% 👍
gotrue/constants.py	90.76% ⭐	95.36% ⭐	4.60% 👍
gotrue/helpers.py	97.50% ⭐	85.38% ⭐	-12.12% 👎
gotrue/types.py	78.52% ⭐	38.79% 😞	-39.73% 👎
gotrue/_sync/api.py	80.85% ⭐	80.72% ⭐	-0.13% 👎
gotrue/_sync/client.py	72.17% 🙂	72.17% 🙂	0.00%

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
gotrue/_sync/client.py	SyncGoTrueClient.get_session_from_url	15 🙂	250 ⛔	13 😞	36.01% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
gotrue/_sync/client.py	SyncGoTrueClient.sign_in	11 🙂	140 😞	13 😞	48.19% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
gotrue/_sync/client.py	SyncGoTrueClient.__init__	3 ⭐	111 🙂	17 ⛔	54.55% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[J0]

Hey @leynier,

Thanks for putting this together! 🚀 Going to go ahead and merge this one in first but feel free to sound off if you have strong opinions about it please lmk and I'll revert. Think this would be really helpful for the general for the general public even without the desired test coverage