Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TEST: Add tests for game_theory/lemke_howson.py #302

Closed
mmcky opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

TEST: Add tests for game_theory/lemke_howson.py #302

mmcky opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

Coverage

game_theory/lemke_howson.py            152    122    20%

This has a similar issue to #300. Coverage is driven by internal private functions. As long as all internal functions are testing through lemke_howson() calls we should probably add # pragma: no cover to internal functions to fix the coverage statistics.

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

@oyamad do you agree with adding the no cover call on internal functions here?

https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/coverage-4.3.4/excluding.html

@mmcky mmcky changed the title TESTS: Add tests for game_theory/lemke_howson.py TEST: Add tests for game_theory/lemke_howson.py Apr 12, 2017
@oyamad
Copy link
Member

oyamad commented Apr 12, 2017

@mmcky Thanks for opening these issues on testing.

The decrease in the coverage value is in fact not because of the privateness, but because jitted functions with nopython=True are not "covered"; see #144 (comment).

But yes, fine with me to exclude private functions that are jitted with nopython=True.

@mmcky
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcky commented Apr 12, 2017

Thanks @oyamad. I have pushed a branch that updates .coveragerc to skip @jit functions in the coverage statistics. This regex approach moves lemke_howson.py to 88+%

Perhaps I should fine tune from @jit to @jit(.*nopython=True)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants