Improve test coverage

[sduquemesa]

Context for changes

Bringing pytest/Codecov score to %95+

Example usage and tests

• Not Applicable

Performance results justifying changes

• Not Applicable

Workflow actions and tests

• Not Applicable

Expected benefits and drawbacks

Expected benefits:

• Improved test coverage of the codebase.

Possible drawbacks:

• None.

Related Github issues

• Not Applicable

Checklist and integration statements

• My Python and C++ codes follow the coding and commenting styles of this project as indicated by existing files. Specifically, the changes conform to given black, docformatter and pylint configurations.
• I have performed a self-review of these changes. I have checked my code and corrected misspellings to the best of my capacity. I have checked the CodeFactor score in the active branch and ensured it is B- or higher. I also confirm that I have already merged other branches into this branch as required.
• I have added context for corresponding changes in documentation and README.md as needed.
• I have added new workflow CI tests for corresponding changes and these pass locally for me.
• I have updated _version.py based on semantic versioning. I recognize that the developers may create a Special Release including my changes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #14 (669342a) into main (61c9dcc) will increase coverage by 1.80%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #14      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.05%   95.86%   +1.80%     
==========================================
  Files          32       32              
  Lines        1835     1838       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         1726     1762      +36     
+ Misses        109       76      -33     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
flamingpy/__init__.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/benchmarks/decoding.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/benchmarks/lemon.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/benchmarks/matching.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/benchmarks/shortest_path.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/decoders/mwpm/lemon.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
flamingpy/_version.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
flamingpy/benchmarks/simulations.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+14.49%)	⬆️
flamingpy/examples/decoding.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+12.50%)	⬆️
flamingpy/examples/surface_code.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+24.13%)	⬆️
... and 9 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 61c9dcc...669342a. Read the comment docs.

[ilan-tz]

Nicely done on bringing the test coverage score up! I left a few comments and questions -- one of them was regarding modifying the test_benchmarks_examples by importing functions rather than simply importing the modules to see if they run:

What was the issue behind this approach? Is it that the codecov score becomes too low? In which case: is it preferable to create functions out of the examples and benchmarks (as you have) or simply to tell codecov to ignore the examples and benchmarks files (we do test them but only with import statements to see if they run - all the other functionality is tested in other places).

I'd please like your take on this before you get to the others!

[ilan-tz]

Nice - just a couple of small comments, and then we can merge.