Conversation
|
Is this superseded by #883 (comment) ? |
|
@bryanwweber ... I don't think so, as this is (thus far) for Python. Edit: I haven't looked into running (as opposed to building) of cxx yet. |
No problem. |
808a434 to
d3090c4
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #892 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.95% 71.45% +0.50%
==========================================
Files 376 376
Lines 45889 46690 +801
==========================================
+ Hits 32560 33362 +802
+ Misses 13329 13328 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
c3c7eb3 to
ec40fea
Compare
ec40fea to
ce162b3
Compare
|
@bryanwweber ... PS: |
655b6f7 to
199c2d2
Compare
199c2d2 to
4192a35
Compare
|
Alright. At this point I believe I have come to a stopping point.
Caveats: |
242ac35 to
5bb49d0
Compare
|
🎉 ... finally the CI runners work on all OS's - it was mainly a function of |
|
Running the samples as part of the test process certainly makes sense. I was thinking about this myself as a follow on to #874 and #883. The approach that I had been considering was to run the Python examples as part of the Python test suite. The advantage of that approach is that we would be able to use the |
|
@speth ... thanks for the feedback. I think the important thing is that examples are run, which is an infinite improvement over the status quo where examples can break without notice, despite being careful when closing out a PR. Going back to fix issues several months later is a painful exercise (thinking about #877 here; #875 was thankfully trivial, and the others I don't think were due to my work). From a philosophical viewpoint, I view unit tests as sanity checks on small test problems, whereas examples are coding examples that are provided to end users. The handful of python examples currently take up about the same amount of run time as the entire test suite, so it's not particularly efficient to automatically add the examples. One other caveat is that writing examples that include regression tests will require a lot more developer input as it's not as straight forward as simply contributing a script. Regarding my proposed implementation, I think that its simplicity is a feature: it's clear and simple to maintain (
|
|
PS: I added the option |
fac1860 to
49d352c
Compare
5804a41 to
99abb97
Compare
99abb97 to
8cfbc4e
Compare
|
@speth and @bryanwweber ... with the latest force-push, the Any feedback is appreciated at this point; if you'd rather pursue a different route, I'll simply close this PR. |
|
Closed again as there appears to be strong opposition to this suggestion. |
Changes proposed in this pull request
If applicable, fill in the issue number this pull request is fixing
Fixes Cantera/enhancements#60
Addresses Cantera/enhancements#37
Checklist
scons build&scons test) and unit tests address code coverage