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

Code improvements and clean-up #102

Open
buep opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 0 comments
Open

Code improvements and clean-up #102

buep opened this issue May 1, 2017 · 0 comments

Comments

@buep
Copy link
Contributor

buep commented May 1, 2017

These observations were made during a little workshop we had around testing in PAC.

We should improve in these areas when we do changes in the near future:

  • class name doesn't match test unit file name
  • unit test collection,but more or less they are functional tests and should be either made real unit tests (only import can be the class under test) or moved to the functional test suite
  • docopt parser isn't yet tested properly, but some examples are made
  • PAC have several error reporting strategies, but they are not clear and must be explained. E.g. our strategy could be:
    • without verbose PAC only reports errors, no stack traces if failing
    • with one verbosity level PAC report error and stack traces if failing
    • with two verbose PAC reports in addition data object in important places during code execution
@buep buep added this to the Backlog milestone May 1, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant