140 testing mechanism #188
Open
+3,133
−2,720
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This overwrites input fortran files which can be useful for - testing idempotency (by running tests twice) - tracking formatting changes when tests are failing (by running tests twice with different fprettify versions) Dump original Fortran files into timestamped backup directory
this bug caused 2 test cases to be indeterministic: - RosettaCodeData/Task/Cartesian-product-of-two-or-more-lists/Fortran/cartesian-product-of-two-or-more-lists.f - RosettaCodeData/Task/Evolutionary-algorithm/Fortran/evolutionary-algorithm-1.f
and remove lengthy tests from regular testing
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 19276268481Details
💛 - Coveralls |
This was referenced Nov 9, 2025
max-models
reviewed
Nov 11, 2025
dbroemmel
reviewed
Nov 11, 2025
README.md
Outdated
| 1. one or more unit tests are added which test formatting of small Fortran code | ||
| snippets, covering all relevant aspects of the added features. | ||
| 2. if the changes lead to failures of existing tests, these test failures | ||
| should be carefully examinated. Only if the test failures are due to |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'examinated' -> 'examined'
dbroemmel
reviewed
Nov 11, 2025
README.md
Outdated
| in = "Some Fortran code" | ||
| out = "Same Fortran code after fprettify formatting" | ||
|
|
||
| # seleced fprettify command line arguments, as documented in "fprettify.py -h": |
dbroemmel
reviewed
Nov 11, 2025
max-models
approved these changes
Nov 11, 2025
max-models
left a comment
max-models
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't find any breaking errors. Here and there I saw some points on the python code style which I would have done differently, but I don't think it's worth quibbling over. The PR looks good to me now :)
| output. | ||
| """ | ||
| if cls.n_parsefail + cls.n_internalfail > 0: | ||
| format = "{:<20}{:<6}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are overwriting the built-in function format() with a local variable named format, maybe it would be better if you renamed the variable to fmt or format_string or so.
|
Is there anything more that needs to be done before merging this? It looks good to me! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I finally found time to wrap up refactoring of the testing mechanism, so that it's better maintainable and so that results are more transparent. The new mechanism is documented in
README.md. This fixes #44, fixes #140 and fixes #134.