Testing framework

[astropiuu]

Testing framework based on pytest that would run on GitHub Actions

Description

The PR includes

• Tests written with pytest
• A GitHub workflow that runs these tests upon a push/ PR to the main branch
• pyproject.toml that has test dependencies This pyproject.toml is based on @Neverhorst 's PR in qudi-core Some tests which fail have been commented out and opened as issues.

Motivation and Context

The testing framework would assist in identifying whether any new changes break the current functionality. So far, the tests written cover loading of all modules, resetting status variables, modifying status variables, and unit testing for the Odmr Logic module.

How Has This Been Tested?

The framework has been tested on a fork repository using the same test workflow

Types of changes

The PR only changes the pyproject.toml and setup.py files The rest of the newly added files are part of testing and do not modify any existing code

• [ ] Bug fix
• [x] New feature
• [ ] Breaking change (Causes existing functionality to not work as expected)

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the code style of this project.
• [ ] I have documented my changes in /docs/changelog.md.
• [ ] My change requires additional/updated documentation.
• [ ] I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• [ ] I have added/updated the config example for any module docstrings as necessary.
• [x] I have checked that the change does not contain obvious errors (syntax, indentation, mutable default values, etc.).
• [x] I have tested my changes using 'Load all modules' on the default dummy configuration.
• [ ] All changed Jupyter notebooks have been stripped of their output cells.

[prithviulm]

This is looking really good! Thanks for your efforts. As a broader point (you don't have to address this right now), I think we need to decide whether the status vars using randomisation should dump their randomly generated values somewhere as artifacts to make it easier to debug if something goes wrong. Alternatively, it could be easier to randomly generate seeds and store the seeds as artifacts.

[astropiuu]

This is looking really good! Thanks for your efforts. As a broader point (you don't have to address this right now), I think we need to decide whether the status vars using randomisation should dump their randomly generated values somewhere as artifacts to make it easier to debug if something goes wrong. Alternatively, it could be easier to randomly generate seeds and store the seeds as artifacts.

Thanks! Yes, dumping status variables would be good. However, I have commented out the tests that randomize the status variables because they break some modules.

[prithviulm]

@astropiuu can you check why the tests are failing?