Details
- Reviewers
ardumont - Group Reviewers
Reviewers - Commits
- rDCIDXa4893e6caa1c: Factorize tests of the indexer storages.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rDCIDX Metadata indexer
- Branch
- factorize-storage-tests2
- Lint
No Linters Available - Unit
No Unit Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 4071 Build 5358: tox-on-jenkins Jenkins Build 5357: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/355/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/355/console
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/356/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/356/console
I'm not sure we gain here. It obfuscates the tests.
well, we do avoid duplication in test data but then the test data is sparse.
In the setup of the tests, we have a partial view of the overall expected results.
futhermore, it seems we lose some tests (e.g. ctags) for example.
I'm mitigated over this one. Another point of view would be nice
@douardda @anlambert any thoughts?
swh/indexer/tests/storage/test_storage.py | ||
---|---|---|
339 | It seems we lose coverage here. |
On the contrary, I find that factorizing them makes them easier to read, as I don't have to read five times almost-the-same-but-not-really code
well, we do avoid duplication in test data but then the test data is sparse.
We also avoid duplication of the test case (which we copy-pasted several times), sometimes with mistakes; that's why this factoring caught a bug.
futhermore, it seems we lose some tests (e.g. ctags) for example.
No we don't. I preserved tests that I could not factorize easily.
swh/indexer/tests/storage/test_storage.py | ||
---|---|---|
339 |
cool |
good points.
On the contrary, I find that factorizing them makes them easier to read, as I don't have to read five times almost-the-same-but-not-really code
Yes and no
Yes, the gist of it is.
No, because the way it's plugged together is not so clear (@rename decorator, tests generation)...
This is no longer simple tests (one might ask where are the tests for the tests plumbing? ;)
i won't block this though. Let's see where this goes.
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/358/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/358/console
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/361/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/361/console
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/362/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/362/console
Build is green
See https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/366/ for more details.
Build has FAILED
Link to build: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/371/
See console output for more information: https://jenkins.softwareheritage.org/job/DCIDX/job/tox/371/console