-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Refactor tests #58
Refactor tests #58
Conversation
I would still like to go and refactor the tests found in I'd propose to do proper unit tests where applicable, and mock needed output inside of |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #58 +/- ##
=========================================
+ Coverage 89.13% 90.33% +1.2%
=========================================
Files 12 12
Lines 506 507 +1
=========================================
+ Hits 451 458 +7
+ Misses 55 49 -6
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
The changes from 9fcdbac can still be optimized. Nonetheless, dividing the extremely bulky |
* Use pytest like it was supposed to be used
48615d4
to
e5df662
Compare
Whoop whoop. Got the coverage up to 90% now. I'll check in the morning if I find any obvious mistakes. |
d96133a
to
593501d
Compare
593501d
to
5652b19
Compare
This should be ready for a review @MSiggel @kain88-de. |
e403a0f
to
dcf8912
Compare
dcf8912
to
06b40fd
Compare
Changes made in this pull request:
@pytest.mark.parametrize
where applicable.PR Checklist
./changelog/
(more information)?[ ] Issue raised/referenced?