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

[ORCA-288] Test Object Naming Refactor #52

Merged
merged 44 commits into from
Dec 15, 2023

Conversation

BWMac
Copy link
Contributor

@BWMac BWMac commented Dec 12, 2023

Problem:

The test file, target, and suite objects defined in conftest.py that we use in our unit tests have confusing names, making it difficult to know what is happening in our tests.

Solution:

Change the names to a loose convention of good_<type_of_file> for "good" files and <reason_why_this_file_is_bad_<type_of_file> for "bad" files.

Notes:

  • All tests run and pass as expected after these changes.
  • I also went ahead and made a couple of changes to simplify some of the logic in conftest.py.

Copy link

swarmia bot commented Dec 12, 2023

Copy link
Contributor

@BryanFauble BryanFauble left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Thanks for making these tests more clear!

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 12, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (abc01c8) 100.00% compared to head (abf5dab) 100.00%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #52   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           24        24           
  Lines         1184      1184           
  Branches       192       192           
=========================================
  Hits          1184      1184           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@thomasyu888 thomasyu888 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🔥 Looks very straightforward to me. Unfortunately, tox is somewhat of a headache which is making me wonder if it's worth just sticking to basics.

Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Dec 15, 2023

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

The SonarCloud Quality Gate passed, but some issues were introduced.

1 New issue
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@BWMac BWMac merged commit b682d1e into main Dec 15, 2023
13 checks passed
@BWMac BWMac deleted the bwmac/ORCA-288/test_object_refactor branch December 15, 2023 17:53
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants