zarr-developers
[TST] Bring test coverage to 100%
As of today, Zarr-Python's main branch has a test coverage of 87%. We should strive to bring this back to 100%. Here is the current report:
❯ hatch env run --env test.py3.12-2.1-optional run-coverage
---------- coverage: platform darwin, python 3.12.8-final-0 ----------
Name Stmts Miss Cover
----------------------------------------------------------
src/zarr/__init__.py 7 0 100%
src/zarr/_compat.py 6 0 100%
src/zarr/_version.py 10 1 90%
src/zarr/abc/__init__.py 0 0 100%
src/zarr/abc/codec.py 71 11 85%
src/zarr/abc/metadata.py 26 3 88%
src/zarr/abc/store.py 129 21 84%
src/zarr/api/__init__.py 0 0 100%
src/zarr/api/asynchronous.py 311 50 84%
src/zarr/api/synchronous.py 77 20 74%
src/zarr/codecs/__init__.py 10 0 100%
src/zarr/codecs/_v2.py 51 6 88%
src/zarr/codecs/blosc.py 99 15 85%
src/zarr/codecs/bytes.py 68 8 88%
src/zarr/codecs/crc32c_.py 38 4 89%
src/zarr/codecs/gzip.py 39 6 85%
src/zarr/codecs/sharding.py 325 40 88%
src/zarr/codecs/transpose.py 47 5 89%
src/zarr/codecs/vlen_utf8.py 71 4 94%
src/zarr/codecs/zstd.py 56 8 86%
src/zarr/convenience.py 4 4 0%
src/zarr/core/__init__.py 3 0 100%
src/zarr/core/_info.py 78 4 95%
src/zarr/core/_tree.py 35 35 0%
src/zarr/core/array.py 572 37 94%
src/zarr/core/array_spec.py 59 3 95%
src/zarr/core/attributes.py 29 7 76%
src/zarr/core/buffer/__init__.py 3 0 100%
src/zarr/core/buffer/core.py 126 27 79%
src/zarr/core/buffer/cpu.py 56 4 93%
src/zarr/core/buffer/gpu.py 75 43 43%
src/zarr/core/chunk_grids.py 69 8 88%
src/zarr/core/chunk_key_encodings.py 58 11 81%
src/zarr/core/codec_pipeline.py 111 10 91%
src/zarr/core/common.py 84 9 89%
src/zarr/core/config.py 15 0 100%
src/zarr/core/group.py 676 51 92%
src/zarr/core/indexing.py 708 39 94%
src/zarr/core/metadata/__init__.py 7 0 100%
src/zarr/core/metadata/common.py 8 1 88%
src/zarr/core/metadata/v2.py 164 21 87%
src/zarr/core/metadata/v3.py 277 18 94%
src/zarr/core/strings.py 35 10 71%
src/zarr/core/sync.py 93 3 97%
src/zarr/creation.py 4 4 0%
src/zarr/errors.py 15 0 100%
src/zarr/registry.py 103 8 92%
src/zarr/storage/__init__.py 18 1 94%
src/zarr/storage/_utils.py 36 2 94%
src/zarr/storage/common.py 176 35 80%
src/zarr/storage/fsspec.py 102 77 25%
src/zarr/storage/local.py 144 20 86%
src/zarr/storage/logging.py 139 53 62%
src/zarr/storage/memory.py 102 18 82%
src/zarr/storage/wrapper.py 80 35 56%
src/zarr/storage/zip.py 152 6 96%
src/zarr/testing/__init__.py 7 1 86%
src/zarr/testing/buffer.py 33 2 94%
src/zarr/testing/stateful.py 213 6 97%
src/zarr/testing/store.py 210 17 92%
src/zarr/testing/strategies.py 35 0 100%
src/zarr/testing/utils.py 25 4 84%
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 6380 836 87%
Test coverage is now being tracked on Codecov -- https://app.codecov.io/gh/zarr-developers/zarr-python/tree/main
Marking this as "Help Wanted" to start soliciting contributions to fill in test gaps.
I'm working a bit on the storage related testing. I expect these can all be addressed in a single coherent PR, but please let me know if you'd rather smaller PRs bringing addressing each module separately.
src/zarr/abc/store.py 129 21 84%
src/zarr/storage/__init__.py 18 1 94%
src/zarr/storage/_utils.py 36 2 94%
src/zarr/storage/common.py 176 35 80%
src/zarr/storage/fsspec.py 102 77 25%
src/zarr/storage/local.py 144 20 86%
src/zarr/storage/logging.py 139 53 62%
src/zarr/storage/memory.py 102 18 82%
src/zarr/storage/wrapper.py 80 35 56%
src/zarr/storage/zip.py 152 6 96%
src/zarr/testing/store.py 210 17 92%
that's great to hear @maxrjones -- I was also working on expanding store tests in #2447, but that PR is super outdated by now. nonetheless it might be helpful to see some of the changes I made to test fixtures, namely pulling the fsspec stuff into the main set of store fixtures
that's great to hear
@maxrjones -- I was also working on expanding store tests in #2447, but that PR is super outdated by now. nonetheless it might be helpful to see some of the changes I made to test fixtures, namely pulling the fsspec stuff into the main set of store fixtures
Oh nice, I didn't see that so thanks for sharing! would you rather update/continue that PR rather than review a different one? I don't want to spend time where it's not necessary.
it's been a while since I worked on that PR, and I don't have time to keep working on it at the moment, so it's very likely that bringing it up to date will be a lot of work. If you think the merge conflicts aren't too bad, then it might save you some time to build on it, but otherwise I would just use it as an example of a similar effort, and you should feel free to copy + paste stuff from it as needed.