[36] prepare packaging for initial release#44
Conversation
korydraughn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this being prepared for an immediate release?
|
i want to make sure it passes its own test suite before releasing, but otherwise... yes? |
|
Absolutely on the testing part. I'm concerned about the impact of significant changes to the interface following the release. Although, it's not at 1.0, so devs have to keep in mind that things can change in big ways. |
|
test suite passes when run against irods_demo (and manually creating the rodsuser it needs): |
|
Hmm, you shouldn't have needed to create any users for the test run. The test suite should've been able to do that using info from config.py. That's my guess considering how much it's modeled after the HTTP API's python tests. |
|
right, i'm going to update the test suite to create and destroy the test user |
|
The test suite should already have that covered. Seems something else is at play or the implementation is just wrong. |
|
I think I see the problem. This is from the HTTP API test suite. Here's the python wrapper's test suite. irods_client_http_python/test/test_endpoint_operations.py Lines 108 to 113 in 5496567 It's missing the user removal code. |
|
now does creation/removal. library itself is very noisy. that's next. |
|
current output is still noisy when the library cannot do what it was asked... |
korydraughn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good.
I think we should drop all of the existing log/print lines. The messages don't reveal anything to the user of the library that they don't already have access to (i.e. error codes, etc).
It would be much better to log the inputs on each call rather than interpreting the results of the operation.
|
|
much quieter now... and a coverage report... |
|
|
pretty much done - found a couple bugs, added tests... |
|
do we need a 'coverage' issue and an 'add ruff' issue? |
|
Yes, new issues are good. |
|
will squash to point at those new issues. |
|
ready for review. this will go in before #49 |
korydraughn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Received a refresh notification while reviewing this.
korydraughn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall this looks good.
Hmm, we don't have any automated testing around this yet. That's for a future PR.
|
i have a local shell script that is running the test suite, it's clean and passing. we'll get it automated in the next PR. |
|
all comments resolved... can squash. |
|
Squash away! |
|
squashed. |
|
#'d |
currently set to py3.6 minimum... can discuss