If you like, consider introducing Codecov.

Will we add a minimum coverage requirement? If so then we may need to consider to rewrite the tests.

Thanks for helping keep improving PixivPy 👍

However, pytest --cov is still a bit different from python demo.py. Currently coverage only checks the coverage of code lines, and does not assert the expected return results. A relatively simple modification may be to add an additional step for the code coverage check.

The API is relatively simple at present, and there is not a lot of processing logic, so I have not considered doing interface testing before.

If you want to write tests, you can consider testing the framework through a JSON-driven interface. For example, read the JSON result of the file through responses, and then assert the results. The advantage of this method is stability, the disadvantage is that it is more troublesome to maintain the JSON files.
Another idea is to directly use the interface of Pixiv for interface testing, which should completely replace thedemo.py, which not only completes the call to the interface and page turning, but also checks whether the response meets expectations (for example, whether type=illust returned novel, etc.)

assert the expected return results

Another idea is to directly use the interface of Pixiv for interface testing, which should completely replace the demo.py, which not only completes the call to the interface and page turning, but also checks whether the response meets expectations (for example, whether type=illust returned novel, etc.)

I will try to do them later.