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

Suggestion : Tests #98

Closed
naik-aakash opened this issue Jul 20, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Suggestion : Tests #98

naik-aakash opened this issue Jul 20, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@naik-aakash
Copy link

naik-aakash commented Jul 20, 2024

Part of JOSS review : openjournals/joss-reviews#6970

Dear developers,

I feel it would be great if tests are added to check for exceptions raised as well. From the current coverage report , I see most of the missing lines are from exceptions and would be better to have tests for these lines as well.

Screenshot 2024-07-19 200817

@daico007
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @naik-aakash, I have added more tests specifically on the exceptions raised in our main code in #106 and #120. Please let us know if you think if there's any area that we missed and needed more testing.

@bc118
Copy link
Collaborator

bc118 commented Aug 27, 2024

I will add that some of the missing coverage parts in code that I write come from “catch all” checks; in which case, I do not know how the code would end up in that error or warning. However, if someone makes an error in the code, something that changes in in unexpected ways or allows the user to enter problematic options, it may catch some of these conditions.

@bc118
Copy link
Collaborator

bc118 commented Aug 31, 2024

Closing as reviewer provided thumbs up on the added tests and general “catch all” checks that are hard to replicate.

More notes on this and other Reviewer Requests (provided as Issues) are located here #101

@bc118 bc118 closed this as completed Aug 31, 2024
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

3 participants