Fix petablint for v2 problems #432
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #432 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 74.82% 74.81% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 62 62
Lines 6764 6765 +1
Branches 1195 1195
==========================================
Hits 5061 5061
- Misses 1251 1252 +1
Partials 452 452 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
dweindl
force-pushed
the
fix_petablint2
branch
from
394664b to
28e129e
Compare
| problem.to_files(Path(tmpdir)) | ||
|
|
||
| result = subprocess.run(["petablint", str(Path(tmpdir, "problem.yaml"))]) # noqa: S603,S607 | ||
| assert result.returncode == 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fine as is, but I would normally opt for asserting that more specific output is the same, rather than something that might be coincidentally the same, like a return code of 0. e.g. see the same error in problem.validate and result.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here it's specifically to check that there is no uncaught exception. This feels sufficient and avoids having to update the test if some message changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, looks good then. Could add that to the description or test name.
Skip `validate_yaml_semantics` for PEtab v2. Those errors will be caught elsewhere. Closes PEtab-dev#428.
dweindl
force-pushed
the
fix_petablint2
branch
from
c24e1ca to
8cf8970
Compare
3 participants
Skip
validate_yaml_semanticsfor PEtab v2. Those errors will be caught elsewhere.Closes #428.