openlibhums / openlibhums/janeway
Audit and document unit and integration testing procedures
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 238
- Forks
- 97
- Avg merge
- 9d 1h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Description
Describe the bug
Janeway development teams use several different tools and testing procedures for unit and integration testing. Some of the differences between test file structures (app/tests.py vs. app/tests/tests.py), runners (nose vs. others), environments (jenkins vs. local installations), and database configurations (PostgresQL vs. SQLite) can lead to tests not being run, tests failing, and collaborators not sure what they should be seeing vs. what they are seeing.
Janeway version
1.4.3
Proposal
Let's audit the test running procedures we use, including the development teams we collaborate with, and document a set of processes that works for everyone and is transparent for everyone.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by comparing the two test layouts named in the issue, app/tests.py and app/tests/tests.py, then audit the referenced runners, Jenkins and local environments, and PostgreSQL versus SQLite configurations. Done means documenting one transparent unit and integration testing process that collaborators can follow and use to distinguish expected results from failures.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- postgresql, python, sqlite
- Domain
- ci-cd, databases, documentation, testing-qa
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100