-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
PROTEUS unit tests #268
Comments
Here's a breakdown of the current test coverage, for reference.
|
A lot of it is the offline chemistry stuff, which is going to be completely reworked anyway. Some of it is the AGNI wrapper, which we could address quite easily. Some of it is from the SPIDER wrapper, which would be harder to do. |
Ok, I believe the offline chemistry lines will probably be touched anyway within the next few months I presume, so that seems doable. The SPIDER wrapper in itself is probably reasonable to touch, but I agree we shouldn't go overboard with this. |
I agree it is important to increase the coverage but I don't think the 100% coverage is a reasonable goal. It is not required for JOSS. |
It is not required, but why is it in general unreasonable? I understand that this means rigorously sorting the current code lines. But in truth, any thing below 100% will in the long run become much harder to keep up because in practice it will be difficult to keep track of where tests are missing, when many users are adding code lines. |
What I mean is that 100% coverage is great but it requires a lot of effort and doesn't mean that it is bug-free because it depends on how to test things. |
We should aim to get the test coverage to 100% before the PROTEUS method paper in JOSS. Alternatively we need to label (or remove) parts of the code that are not yet necessary anymore.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: