Closed potto1 closed 6 years ago
Merging #136 into PDE_reviewed will increase coverage by
1.24%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## PDE_reviewed #136 +/- ##
===============================================
+ Coverage 62.05% 63.3% +1.24%
===============================================
Files 209 221 +12
Lines 9644 10003 +359
===============================================
+ Hits 5985 6332 +347
- Misses 3659 3671 +12
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
source/src/visualize/UnstructuredGrid.cpp | 87.17% <0%> (-5.85%) |
:arrow_down: |
source/src/mechanics/constitutive/LinearElastic.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/src/mechanics/cell/Cell.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/src/mechanics/cell/CellInterface.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/test/mechanics/cell/PatchTest.cpp | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/src/visualize/UnstructuredGrid.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/test/visualize/UnstructuredGrid.cpp | 100% <0%> (ø) |
:arrow_up: |
source/src/visualize/VoronoiHandler.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
|
source/src/visualize/AverageHandler.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
|
source/src/visualize/Visualizer.h | 100% <0%> (ø) |
|
... and 14 more |
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 4c9dfb3...2d662a3. Read the comment docs.
Is there some document that explains the design process? What is the problem you're trying to solve, what is the API, how are the classes connected, etc? Could you add an example of how this is supposed to be used, maybe as an extension of PatchTest.cpp?
Actually there are two test files https://github.com/nutofem/nuto/blob/PDE_visualize/test/visualize/VoronoiVisualizer.cpp and https://github.com/nutofem/nuto/blob/PDE_visualize/test/visualize/AverageVisualizer.cpp All the things are IMO far from to be done. Just opened the pull request to track the changes. The discussion is taking place in the issue #130
I may be wrong thinking the pull request is the right instrument for this, IMO the branch is not mergable until the issue #129 is solved.
Visualizing the PatchTest.cpp is a good idea, but the function giving the IP values is not ready yet, IMO.
While I agree that further splitting makes it easier to test, I'm not quite sure that the added complexity is worth the gain in testability. So yeah, this to me is an additional refactoring once the code duplication becomes more apparent. But I won't stop you if you want to do it now.