Skip to content
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

Refactoring changes and Pytest Integration #1083

Closed

Conversation

FabianHofmann
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR proposes to feed back changes from the OET branch. This mostly include

  • refactoring and cleanup
  • unit testing script functions

As far as I see, most of these changes are qutie valuable, unit testing is something we should start to do anyway, so this is a good initiative.

For now, I put this PR on draft mode, as I also have some slight reversions that I would like to apply. But having it here allows us to better track overall changes.

Checklist

  • I consent to the release of this PR's code under the AGPLv3 license and non-code contributions under CC0-1.0 and CC-BY-4.0.
  • I tested my contribution locally and it seems to work fine.
  • Code and workflow changes are sufficiently documented.
  • Newly introduced dependencies are added to envs/environment.yaml and doc/requirements.txt.
  • Changes in configuration options are added in all of config.default.yaml and config.tutorial.yaml.
  • Add a test config or line additions to test/ (note tests are changing the config.tutorial.yaml)
  • Changes in configuration options are also documented in doc/configtables/*.csv and line references are adjusted in doc/configuration.rst and doc/tutorial.rst.
  • A note for the release notes doc/release_notes.rst is amended in the format of previous release notes, including reference to the requested PR.

@davide-f
Copy link
Member

Regarding this tracking, I summarize here past discussions in the initiative.

This PR combines multiple different features some of them are quite good in spirit but may be better reviewed one by one.
By clustering the changes, it seemed we could have:

  • 1 PR on pathlib, improving on Issue 501 os to pathlib #1017
  • 1 PR on unit testing
  • various improvements too to styling that can be placed as best and appropriate

Do I miss something?

@ekatef
Copy link
Member

ekatef commented Nov 27, 2024

Re-opened as #1290. Please feel free to continue a discussion here.

@finozzifa a gentle reminder on the initial review comments mentioned in this comment. As discussed before, addressing the concerns in this comment is a necessary first step to implementing these changes. Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants