You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a tracking issue as a follow-up of adding more tests as one of the improvement items listed in #194.
With #218 the model build of MESSAGEix-Materials has become testable, which significantly raised coverage. @glatterf42 has suggested a few more test cases, which are listed here:
Test MACRO calibration file updater
Typically, one would likely shorten the first sentence like this.
Also, would it be possible to get a test calling this function?
A parametrization like this is great, but would likely be even more beneficial if the function parameters actually received different values. Also, this would add line 50 of this file to the tests :)
Testing these two lines (254 and 255) might not be strictly necessary, but if you wanted to do it, I'd recommend making these lines their own function, that does just one job: take a Spec object and extend the node set. This would likely be easier to test than this whole make_spec() function as it requires less setup.
Test MESSAGEix-Materials on a MESSAGEix-GLOBIOM (R12) snapshot
Same as above: is is feasible to write a test that calls this function once with modify_existing_constraints = True and once with modify_existing_constraints = False?
This is a tracking issue as a follow-up of adding more tests as one of the improvement items listed in #194.
With #218 the model build of MESSAGEix-Materials has become testable, which significantly raised coverage. @glatterf42 has suggested a few more test cases, which are listed here:
test_build()
test_make_spec()
material-ix
CLI commandsIn addition, the following model workflow parts need tests:
model/report/reporting.py
, refactored version is in development)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: