TST: increase test coverage

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Pull request type

• Code maintenance (refactoring, formatting, tests)

Checklist

• Tests for the changes have been added (if needed)
• Lint (black rocketpy/ tests/) has passed locally
• All tests (pytest tests -m slow --runslow) have passed locally
• CHANGELOG.md has been updated (if relevant)

Current behavior

• Coverage without slow tests: 76%

New behavior

• Coverage without slow tests: 80%
• Coverage with slow tests: 92%

Breaking change

• No

Additional information

• I'm not sure if I will have time to add more tests, so I guess the PR is ready for review
• Please review carefully the logics behind the tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 80.32%. Comparing base (83aa20e) to head (88e6025).
Report is 9 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #756      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    76.42%   80.32%   +3.90%     
===========================================
  Files           95       95              
  Lines        11090    10968     -122     
===========================================
+ Hits          8475     8810     +335     
+ Misses        2615     2158     -457     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

These are the top 10 files we should be worried about and try to increase coverage:

[Lucas-Prates]

@Gui-FernandesBR if you do not mind, I can take a closer look at sensitivity_model and sensitivity_prints. I recall that you implemented tests back in the PR, but they were failing for some reason.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

@Gui-FernandesBR if you do not mind, I can take a closer look at sensitivity_model and sensitivity_prints. I recall that you implemented tests back in the PR, but they were failing for some reason.

Yes please, I'd like some help on that

[Lucas-Prates]

100% coverage for both sensitivity_model and sensitivity_prints. Also removed a piece of duplicate code inside sensitivity_model.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

@Lucas-Prates could yo review this test please? test_short_time_fft

[Lucas-Prates]

Looks okay to me! If you want to include a "numeric assertion" test, since you are using pure signal (i.e. sine function), all the result functions should be a Dirac delta function, i.e. a pulse function, at the given frequency, 5 Hz in this case. Something like this

So, if you want to, you could include an extra argument true_frequency, and then

signal = np.sin(2 * np.pi * true_frequency * t)
.
.
.
for f in stft_results:
    assert pytest.approx(1, 0.01) == f[true_frequency - 1][1]

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Ok, I think this PR is already in a good point.
Of course that we can do even better. Ideally we should see 90% of code coverage without slow tests, and up to 10% of slowed tests.
But for today we are fine already.

@RocketPy-Team/code-owners ready for review! Pleas notice that the code coverage has increased 4 pp, but I didn't spend much time trying to find the best validation possible for each function method. I opted to be simple.

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Once again I am sharing the top 10 worst files in terms of coverage.
Perhaps you could contribute a little to the function.py file, @phmbressan ?