[MRG] Added data check on axes in test_gui.py

[samadpls]

Fixes issue #697

• added check for data on axes in test_gui.py

[jasmainak]

@gtdang can you review?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.44%. Comparing base (df99e07) to head (51b6ee5).
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head 51b6ee5 differs from pull request most recent head 09d1e1e. Consider uploading reports for the commit 09d1e1e to get more accurate results

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #726      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.06%   89.44%   +0.37%     
==========================================
  Files          28       28              
  Lines        5068     5068              
==========================================
+ Hits         4514     4533      +19     
+ Misses        554      535      -19     

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

[gtdang]

This change is not needed as there is already a check for the default figure production in test_gui_add_figure.

The default figures are the figures that are automatically generated after running a simulation. The figures that need to be checked are the figures that the user can manually create using the Visualization tab. See image below.

Of this list "current dipole" and "histogram" don't need checks as they are part of the default set of plots. The others will need to have unique test functions developed except for the spectrogram, which already has a unique test test_gui_adaptive_spectrogram. However the spectrogram does need to have a check for if data is plotted.

[rythorpe]

Also, @samadpls, if you use the word "fixes" or "closes" followed by the issue tag, GH will automatically detect it and close the associated issue when your PR gets merged. Just a fun trick! 😄

[samadpls]

@gtdang, thank you for your suggestions. 🙌🏻 I have added the test cases for the mentioned plots above. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to address

[gtdang]

@jasmainak @dylansdaniels @ntolley Do we update the whats_new.rst for a change like this? Or only user-facing changes?

[jasmainak]

No updates to whats_new.rst ... it's only for user facing changes!

[jasmainak]

lol ... I'm glad I made you do this ;-)

[jasmainak]

Looks good except the last nitpick ... I'll let @gtdang hit the "Squash and merge" button if he is happy.

Great first contribution! Shoot us an email to start discussing the GSoC project. @ntolley is your point person for that.

[gtdang]

Looks great!

[gtdang]

Looks good except the last nitpick ... I'll let @gtdang hit the "Squash and merge" button if he is happy.

Great first contribution! Shoot us an email to start discussing the GSoC project. @ntolley is your point person for that.

Squash and not rebase?

[jasmainak]

We want to keep the commit history clean ... the diff should have been one or two commits. Rebase and merge is good when it's a bigger PR and we want to track the history of the changes.