Remove files used for running tests#12
Conversation
| ############################################################################## | ||
| """Convenience module for executing all unit tests with | ||
| python -m \.tests.run | ||
| python -m diffpy.nmf_mapping.tests.run |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the wrong syntax here as we are moving over to using pytest to run tests. Please look in cookicutter or one of the other projects
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From the cookiecutter repo, I see it is the latest tests/run.py file:
I checked diffpy.structure
https://github.com/diffpy/diffpy.structure/blob/main/src/diffpy/structure/tests/run.py
but it seems even older.
What is the "latest" one?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we just delete this run.py? Then in the ci (and when we run it locally) we just run pytest or coverage
| ############################################################################## | ||
| """Convenience module for executing all unit tests with | ||
| python -m \.tests.run | ||
| python -m diffpy.nmf_mapping.tests.run |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the wrong syntax here as we are moving over to using pytest to run tests. Please look in cookicutter or one of the other projects
|
@sbillinge Please see diffpy/diffpy.stretched-nmf#72 |
| ############################################################################## | ||
| """Convenience module for executing all unit tests with | ||
| python -m \.tests.run | ||
| python -m diffpy.nmf_mapping.tests.run |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we just delete this run.py? Then in the ci (and when we run it locally) we just run pytest or coverage
bobleesj
left a comment
bobleesj
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Files used for running tests removed.
This will be the last edit in a while.
Now, other diffpy projects will be priotized.
bobleesj
changed the title
|
@bobleesj this is failing tests. Do you want me to merge it and get tests passing on a separate PR? |
2 participants
Same as the title:
Addressing #10 (review)