I359 programmatically query results

[fcooper8472]

See #350.

Current shortcomings are:

• Can only handle a single output being requested at a time
• Testing is inadequate: can't yet figure out how to mock a working store that includes all the components necessary to test the get_results() method.
  • This can be most easily done by using the sample project, but this avenue has been ruled out in favour of fixtures (see #304)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #367 into develop will increase coverage by 0.29%. The diff coverage is 83.09%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #367      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.73%   71.02%   +0.29%     
===========================================
  Files           59       60       +1     
  Lines         5204     5336     +132     
  Branches       618      659      +41     
===========================================
+ Hits          3681     3790     +109     
- Misses        1431     1449      +18     
- Partials        92       97       +5

Flag	Coverage Δ
#javascript	71.02% <83.09%> (+0.29%)	:arrow_up:
#python	78.73% <83.09%> (+0.11%)	:arrow_up:

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/smif/data_layer/file/file_data_store.py	87.07% <100%> (ø)	:arrow_up:
src/smif/data_layer/store.py	90.51% <76.82%> (-4.76%)	:arrow_down:
src/smif/data_layer/results.py	91.52% <91.52%> (ø)
src/smif/data_layer/data_array.py	86.89% <0%> (+0.68%)	:arrow_up:

---

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 a5d2e47...b94bce9. Read the comment docs.

[willu47]

I'm happy with the functionality now. @tomalrussell wanted to have a look through the testing options for you @fcooper8472, so over to him.

[fcooper8472]

@tomalrussell wanted to have a look through the testing options for you @fcooper8472, so over to him.

That would be really helpful - I've been struggling to mock a "complete" state that includes the necessary model runs, sector models and results. If we could work out how to provide that in a fixture it would be useful more widely, but would definitely allow us to thoroughly test this.

[fcooper8472]

I'm in the process of tinkering with the fixtures to improve the test coverage - but happy for you to merge this now and look at further changes down the line if you prefer?

[tomalrussell]

I'll pick this up on Tuesday afternoon and aim to cut 1.1 (#369) - a bit of tinkering and coverage would be welcome if you can fit it in before then.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #367 into develop will increase coverage by 0.29%. The diff coverage is 83.09%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #367      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.73%   71.02%   +0.29%     
===========================================
  Files           59       60       +1     
  Lines         5204     5336     +132     
  Branches       618      659      +41     
===========================================
+ Hits          3681     3790     +109     
- Misses        1431     1449      +18     
- Partials        92       97       +5

Flag	Coverage Δ
#javascript	71.02% <83.09%> (+0.29%)	:arrow_up:
#python	78.73% <83.09%> (+0.11%)	:arrow_up:

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/smif/data_layer/file/file_data_store.py	87.07% <100%> (ø)	:arrow_up:
src/smif/data_layer/store.py	90.51% <76.82%> (-4.76%)	:arrow_down:
src/smif/data_layer/results.py	91.52% <91.52%> (ø)
src/smif/data_layer/data_array.py	86.89% <0%> (+0.68%)	:arrow_up:

---

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 a5d2e47...b94bce9. Read the comment docs.