You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We're getting very good coverage percentages out of runtests htmlcov but the numbers are quite misleading: at least some of the unittests are not actually verifying the returned data properly: e.g. test_experiment.test__feature_check__computation() doesn't verify the feature check of the feature feature...
We should:
push all unittests as low as possible in the function call structure (e.g. check the feature check directly, not through the class-level interface) so that it is clearer what needs to be checked
when writing unittests, indicate clearly (if only in the function docstrings) whether some checks have not been implemented yet, or better:
do not call functions in a unittest unless you are sure you have comprehensively checked the return
In any case when we are performing a complex operation on a data-set (like a feature-check of a dataframe) we must be careful to really check the return: otherwise all the code that gets hit by the called operation will be marked as 'covered' but will not actually have been tested!
this is a very general problem... I'm sure others have had the same issue... I wonder how they've dealt with it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We're getting very good coverage percentages out of
runtests htmlcov
but the numbers are quite misleading: at least some of the unittests are not actually verifying the returned data properly: e.g.test_experiment.test__feature_check__computation()
doesn't verify the feature check of thefeature
feature...We should:
In any case when we are performing a complex operation on a data-set (like a feature-check of a dataframe) we must be careful to really check the return: otherwise all the code that gets hit by the called operation will be marked as 'covered' but will not actually have been tested!
this is a very general problem... I'm sure others have had the same issue... I wonder how they've dealt with it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: