-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Simple GUI test for CI #223
Simple GUI test for CI #223
Conversation
Code coverage report is automatically uploaded to codecov.io https://about.codecov.io/
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #223 +/- ##
======================================
Coverage ? 23.12%
======================================
Files ? 30
Lines ? 3965
Branches ? 0
======================================
Hits ? 917
Misses ? 3048
Partials ? 0 📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
I really do not like how the CI job takes <5 minutes on the
|
Update: I think it's the A possible workaround would be to mark the super slow tests as |
Yes, unfortunately
Yes, that's one possibility. Before that I want to check if I can improve this test a bit to speed it up on CI and so that we can just run it with the normal tests. For now: since you now have the PR on dev it should not be a problem here. Can you go ahead and fix the merge conflicts (which I think are because I squashed and merged #214) and, if you have any more changes you want to make, add them too? I will then:
|
I've fixed the merge conflicts, and opened a separate issue for discussion about I'm very happy that this CI job runs in about 6 minutes - the gui test is not slow at all! |
a0a47b3
into
computational-cell-analytics:dev
Enable GUI tests in CLI and add a simple GUI test.
Closes #205
This PR:
That brings our code coverage up to 23%. I did do some extra work (not in this branch) to see if I could mimic user interaction of annotation to this test... but that only increased the test coverage by about 2%. My guess is that these functions might already be covered by unit tests, so it's not helpful to make a giant integration test anyway.
Careful: this PR is just added straight on top of the many, many git commits involved in branch #214. We should do, uh, something with git to fix any problems from that. (Worst case scenario, I can close and and reopen a new PR for this after #214 is merged.)