Add tests

[mattjegan]

There are not unit tests available as of yet in this repo apart from the general "does it run" TravisCI tests. Perhaps this could be opened up and labelled as "hacktoberfest" to draw attention @aclark4life. It may help bring more contributors to the project.

[hugovk]

Labelled!

[pratyushprakash]

Hi, I'd like to take this up. Can you elaborate on what tests should be included

[M3rs]

I'm sorry, should I have commented here first? I added some tests for the "normalize" method and created a pull request.

[hugovk]

Thanks @M3rs for the unit tests for normalize added in PR https://github.com/aclark4life/vanity/pull/35!

And there's still other functions to unit test :)

[killvung]

Hey! I just looked at the normalize() function, but wondering whether we have to take action or not, if the user passes in string with space. Because it's technically possible to do it by calling

vanity " Flask "

So would vanity suppose to evaluation as correct Flask package or error?

[mattjegan]

@killVung I would argue that although it's possible to input something like vanity " Flask " we should raise an error since PEP8 does not allow whitespace in package names.

At the moment vanity seems to accept the input but doesn't interpret it as expected, I have opened an issue for this in #42

[hugovk]

I think the most useful thing for the user would be to trim the leading and trailing whitespace.

[hugovk]

Without the "does it run" tests and only unit tests, we'd be at 31% coverage.

You can clearly see here which functions aren't yet covered and would benefit from unit tests:

https://coveralls.io/builds/8285536/source?filename=vanity.py

[M3rs]

Added some more tests (testing the by_two function), PR #50 -- not sure why adding tests dropped coverage by 0.2%.

[hugovk]

Coverage dropped because by_two was refactored into fewer lines:

• Before: 136 of 157 relevant lines covered
• After: 134 of 155 relevant lines covered

No problem.

[hugovk]

PR #50 brings unit-test-only coverage up to 36%.

https://coveralls.io/builds/8321165/source?filename=vanity.py

Forward‚ onward‚ and upward!

[M3rs]

Working on tests for count_downloads method next, I'll make another PR :)

[M3rs]

PR #55 opened, basic tests for "get_jsonparsed_data".

[hugovk]

PR https://github.com/aclark4life/vanity/pull/54 brings coverage to 46%!

[hugovk]

PR #55 to 51%!

[aclark4life]

GO GO GO

[M3rs]

Could you post the link to the unit-test-only coverage again? Working on more =)

[hugovk]

I'm not at a computer to push that branch right now, but you can check yourself with something like:

coverage run --include=vanity.py tests.py # runs only unit tests with coverage
coverage report # shows percentage on CL
coverage html # open htmlcov/index.html for details

[M3rs]

Thanks!

[M3rs]

PR #56 created, takes unit-test-only coverage on vanity.py up to 68%!

Biggest chunk of code missing tests is get_releases and the section of get_release_info dependent on get_releases.

[hugovk]

PR https://github.com/aclark4life/vanity/pull/56 to 69%!

[suv27]

Is this issue still open, I can to practice my unit test skills, I would like to know if there is any python script that still needs to be unit tests?

[hugovk]

Unfortunately the API that this project used is no longer available, so it's probably time to say thank you and archive this repo.

Alternatives:

• https://github.com/ofek/pypinfo
• https://github.com/hugovk/pypistats

[suv27]

@hugovk Those alternative repos have issues about unit testing that I can work on? What about https://github.com/hugovk/pypistats?

[hugovk]

https://github.com/hugovk/pypistats is 99.55% covered by unit tests, which is good enough. Thanks for asking!

[guntbert]

@hugovk might be a good idea to close this issue and remove the hacktoberfest label?

[hugovk]

Good idea, though I don't have permission to do so.

@aclark4life Please could you unlabel and close this?