Skip to content

Expand unit tests to improve code coverage for options - #240

Merged
Ja-Gk-00 merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
GH-#237/Improve-code-coverage
Jul 30, 2025
Merged

Expand unit tests to improve code coverage for options#240
Ja-Gk-00 merged 11 commits into
mainfrom
GH-#237/Improve-code-coverage

Conversation

@Ja-Gk-00

@Ja-Gk-00 Ja-Gk-00 commented Jul 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Added tests for options to expand the overall test coverage.
Also excluded file rdf_pb2.py from codecov coverage (its automatically generated code and uncovered parts are not used).

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
pyjelly/options.py 97.29% <ø> (+8.10%) ⬆️
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_lookup/test_lookup_object.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options/test_options.py Outdated
@Ja-Gk-00 Ja-Gk-00 changed the title Expand unit tests to improve code coverage Expand unit tests to improve code coverage for options Jul 30, 2025
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options.py Outdated
Comment thread tests/unit_tests/test_options.py Outdated
(jelly.PHYSICAL_STREAM_TYPE_QUADS, jelly.LOGICAL_STREAM_TYPE_FLAT_QUADS),
(jelly.PHYSICAL_STREAM_TYPE_QUADS, jelly.LOGICAL_STREAM_TYPE_DATASETS),
(jelly.PHYSICAL_STREAM_TYPE_QUADS, jelly.LOGICAL_STREAM_TYPE_NAMED_GRAPHS),
(jelly.PHYSICAL_STREAM_TYPE_TRIPLES, jelly.LOGICAL_STREAM_TYPE_FLAT_TRIPLES),

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

isn't it the first option in the list? Oo

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh, yes. Eh my IDE is not really helpful in showing duplicates. Fixed.

Comment thread codecov.yml Outdated
- "docs"
- "tests"
- "examples"
- "jelly" No newline at end of file

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

so this makes protobuf files ignored, do we really want to do that?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes it will and that was my point. Mainly, I've read about testing code, and in general generated code is not really tested (at least not directly like here) and we should make some integration/conformance test for that that would check its viability. So ok, for this PR will still include it, however i think we should make a patch to exclude it.

@Ja-Gk-00
Ja-Gk-00 merged commit b9cd252 into main Jul 30, 2025
11 checks passed
@Ja-Gk-00
Ja-Gk-00 deleted the GH-#237/Improve-code-coverage branch July 30, 2025 13:00
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