🚀 Feature: Ensure tests for Roadway Components have adequate coverage for non-Emme methods
DavidOry opened this issue · 0 comments
User Story
As a developer, I want to know that changes I am making to the code do not break things. In our current workflow, we have two categories of tests: (a) those that rely on Emme and (b) those that do not rely on Emme. Tests in category (b) can be incorporated into a continuous integration workflow using GitHub Actions. Tests in category (a) must, for now and the foreseeable future, be run off-line by a developer with access to Emme. Ideally, the testing infrastructure would put as many tests in category (b) as possible, to maximize the amount of code covered by CI procedures.
Progress:
- Sufficiently defined
- Approach determined
- Tests developed
- User story satisfied
- Doc strings
- General documentation
- Passing tests
Priority
Medium
Level of Effort
Medium
Resolution Ideas
In cases where Emme is required for a test, but only to, for example, obtain the number of zones from the databank, default values are introduced to the tests. This will allow a larger number of tests to be run when Emme is not present. It may also be that methods that use Emme are refined to use other methods that do not rely on Emme, where possible.
Project
WSP's Task Order 3 for the Roadway Component and review of non-Roadway Components
Who should be involved?
Users: @lmz
Reviewers: @i-am-sijia, @e-lo
Risk
The scope of the change is limited to the tests, so the risk is low.
Tests
The scope of the feature is the tests themselves.