Improve test coverage

[nickserv]

See https://coveralls.io/r/technicalpickles/homesick

[technicalpickles]

I think 88% is actually pretty good. What percentage coverage would we want? 

On April 15, 2014 at 9:45:48 PM EDT, Nicolas McCurdy notifications@github.com wrote: —Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[nickserv]

I agree that it's pretty good, but there are still a few chunks of code that I think could use some more regression tests. Also, I could be wrong but it seems to me like only the command line commands are directly tested.

[technicalpickles]

Yep. I think aiming for better coverage of those things is a better than overal coverage percentage since it can be deceiving.

On April 17, 2014 at 4:17:00 PM EDT, Nicolas McCurdy notifications@github.com wrote:I agree that it's pretty good, but there are still a few chunks of code that I think could use some more regression tests. Also, I could be wrong but it seems to me like only the command line commands are directly tested. —Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[JCook21]

Would it be a good idea to open separate issues for each piece of code that doesn't have coverage that we feel should have it and to tie it back to this one? That way we can have some sort of tangible goal in this issue.

[technicalpickles]

@JCook21 that'd be a great idea 👍 I'm a big fan of using task lists on 'big picture' issues, and linking to subissues from each task.

[JCook21]

@technicalpickles thanks, lets try to proceed on this path. @nicolasmccurdy assuming you agree with the above would you like to take point on this since you opened the issue originally?

[nickserv]

I like tasks lists a lot, but I don't think that most of our subtasks would be large enough that they would need separate issues, so I would personally prefer just having a task list in this issue for now. I'm fine either way though, let me know what you'd like me to do and I can start making some subtasks.

I'd like to also focus more on adding unit tests for more modules, and not just test coverage in the existing homesick_spec.rb, if that sounds good to you.