As I mentioned on Pull 29, the fact that this plugin lacks unit tests is a problem. I notice that several open and closed issues have been due to minor typos and other simple bugs that are usually stamped out in unit testing. Especially since it's written in an interpreted language like Python, we need good unit test coverage to avoid silly bugs.
This repo has escaped "real" code reviews by being on GitHub, but it should not be exempt from our standards the way it has been historically. Reviews going forward should hold the code to all the rules of Google's Python style guide. They should also insist upon maintaining 70%+ test coverage, like usual.
To close this issue ticket, add unit testing covering at least 70% of lines of Python code in this project.
As I mentioned on Pull 29, the fact that this plugin lacks unit tests is a problem. I notice that several open and closed issues have been due to minor typos and other simple bugs that are usually stamped out in unit testing. Especially since it's written in an interpreted language like Python, we need good unit test coverage to avoid silly bugs.
This repo has escaped "real" code reviews by being on GitHub, but it should not be exempt from our standards the way it has been historically. Reviews going forward should hold the code to all the rules of Google's Python style guide. They should also insist upon maintaining 70%+ test coverage, like usual.
To close this issue ticket, add unit testing covering at least 70% of lines of Python code in this project.