Skip to content

Conversation

@Andeshog
Copy link
Contributor

Should be 100% coverage now 🙏

@Andeshog Andeshog requested a review from kluge7 February 25, 2025 11:25
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 25, 2025

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.73%. Comparing base (3c42b9d) to head (7871d82).
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
test/test_cpp_utils.cpp 82.45% 0 Missing and 10 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main       #3       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   86.27%   96.73%   +10.45%     
===========================================
  Files           4        5        +1     
  Lines         153      306      +153     
  Branches        2       40       +38     
===========================================
+ Hits          132      296      +164     
+ Misses         20        0       -20     
- Partials        1       10        +9     
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 96.73% <93.75%> (+10.45%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/cpp_utils.cpp 100.00% <100.00%> (+100.00%) ⬆️
tests/test_utils.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
test/test_cpp_utils.cpp 82.45% <82.45%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should add documentation for each test explaining what you are testing

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what part is not "self documenting", or you feel needs documentation? I feel like docs here would just repeat what the code says 🤷

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have a point but comments make the purpose of the test clearer, which is important if someone new were to look at the code later

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can cook some comments then

@kluge7 kluge7 self-requested a review February 25, 2025 15:27
Comment on lines +74 to +84
}

TEST(quat_to_euler, test_quat_to_euler_5) {
Eigen::Quaterniond q5(0.770, 0.4207, -0.4207, -0.229);
Eigen::Vector3d expected5(1.0, -1.0, 0.0);
Eigen::Vector3d result5 = quat_to_euler(q5);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
EXPECT_NEAR(expected5[i], result5[i], 0.01);
}
}

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

missed a spot

@kluge7 kluge7 self-requested a review February 25, 2025 16:41
Copy link
Contributor

@kluge7 kluge7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good enough i guess

@Andeshog Andeshog merged commit 24357ef into main Feb 25, 2025
5 checks passed
@Andeshog Andeshog deleted the cpp-tests branch February 25, 2025 16:47
@github-actions
Copy link

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.4.1 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants