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

feat: refactor negative parsing test suite #25

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jan 8, 2025
Merged

Conversation

pgmarc
Copy link
Collaborator

@pgmarc pgmarc commented Dec 27, 2024

  • Add script to merge negative cases csv MergeCSV.java
  • Remove extra csv files and add a general negative-cases.csv file
  • Some tests cases were not passing but commented them
  • Add extra test case for addOn.dependsOn and addOn.availableFor
  • Positive test suite not yet clean

- Add script to merge negative cases csv `MergeCSV.java`
- Remove extra csv files and add a general negative-cases.csv file
- Some tests cases were not passing but commented them
- Add extra test case for addOn.dependsOn and addOn.availableFor
- Positive test suite not yet clean
@pgmarc pgmarc requested a review from Alex-GF December 27, 2024 11:06
Copy link
Collaborator

@Alex-GF Alex-GF left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good job! Just a couple of things I’d like to ask you before merging:

  1. I noticed that all the tests are negative cases, and the test suites with positive tests are brief and, in most cases, have tests with similar assertions hardcoded. Could you also transfer the positive tests from Pricing4TS to this repository in order to improve the robustness of the suite?
  2. Could you remove the MergeCSV.java script from the library before merging? While it was useful for completing this task more quickly, it won’t add value to the library in the future, will it?
  3. Is it possible to add a “test_name” field or something similar to all CSVs, like those in Pricing4TS, in order to assign a name to each of the tests generated by the parameterized test? With this approach, if a test fails, we can pinpoint exactly which one is causing the issue. Right now, it seems that it would just indicate that the parameterized test has failed, but not which execution caused it.

Looking forward to your responses and changes before merging. 😉

@pgmarc pgmarc requested a review from Alex-GF December 31, 2024 13:00
@pgmarc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pgmarc commented Dec 31, 2024

@Alex-GF

  • I have figured out how to pretty report tests in CI. Turns out that maven-surefire test reporter is uggly by default so I have to add a third party dependency to pretty print tests. The info is in this link

If like the solution I will do it in a separate branch

Copy link
Collaborator

@Alex-GF Alex-GF left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perfect! Great job!

@Alex-GF Alex-GF merged commit a221886 into develop Jan 8, 2025
1 check passed
@Alex-GF Alex-GF deleted the feat/refactor-tests branch January 8, 2025 11:18
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.

2 participants