Skip to content

incorporation of test improvements from parallel branch #959

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

Merged

Conversation

melange396
Copy link
Collaborator

Updates to include improvements from "merged key dimension table" branch (krivard/v4-rpp-mergeddim-leftjoin), specifically at commit hash fbf878e.
Changes include:

  • unit/integration testing refactorization and other improvements.
  • percona dbms now used in db docker image, plus changes for resulting compatibility issues.
  • db schema names are specified in ddl files.
  • removed of obsolete index hint guessing method.
  • updated comments.

This changeset is essentially just a port of the excellent work @krivard did to refactor and otherwise improve the test architecture, as she applied it to branch mentioned above. Most of the files were simply copied over from the other branch to this one to create this PR; I only really made edits to these files: (and most edits were to strip out "mergedkey" stuff)

  • src/ddl/v4_schema.sql
  • src/acquisition/covidcast/database.py
  • src/acquisition/covidcast/test_utils.py
  • integrations/acquisition/covidcast/test_covidcast_meta_caching.py
  • integrations/server/covidcast/test_covidcast_meta.py

Updates to include improvements from "merged key dimension table" branch (`krivard/v4-rpp-mergeddim-leftjoin`), specifically at commit hash `fbf878e`.
Changes include:
 - unit/integration testing refactorization and other improvements.
 - percona dbms now used in db docker image, plus changes for resulting compatibility issues.
 - db schema names are specified in ddl files.
 - removed of obsolete index hint guessing method.
 - updated comments.

This changeset is essentially just a port of the excellent work @krivard did to refactor and otherwise improve the test architecture, as she applied it to branch mentioned above.  Most of the files were simply copied over from the other branch to this one to create this PR; I only really made edits to these files: (and most edits were to strip out "mergedkey" stuff)
 - src/ddl/v4_schema.sql
 - src/acquisition/covidcast/database.py
 - src/acquisition/covidcast/test_utils.py
 - integrations/acquisition/covidcast/test_covidcast_meta_caching.py
 - integrations/server/covidcast/test_covidcast_meta.py
`value`, `stderr`, `sample_size`,
`issue`, `lag`, `missing_value`,
`missing_stderr`,`missing_sample_size`)
VALUES
(%d, %d, %d, "%s", %d, 123,
%d, 0, 0, %d, 0, %d, %d, %d)
(%d, %d, %d,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we have code standards set for line length and how to format things like this? Seems to change from file to file and it would be nice to have a unified truth for the project.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not in this repo, and we should! Outside the scope of this PR but I made an issue for it.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we dont have any hard rules. generally, imnsho, the format should be something that "looks clean" (or at least is not sloppy), preferably with a structure that makes it easy to read, identifies/highlights important parts, and otherwise means something semantically (whenever possible).

this section you highlighted includes sql with column names that need to follow the same order as the values provided shortly after; thus the formatting here has line breaks that match up 1:1, so that each row of column names corresponds to a later row for its values. that way, its easy to see (for example) that the last item of the second row of column names (value_updated_timestamp) refers to the last item of the second row of values (123).

all this test code has come a long way, but there is still more room for improvement... see #897

for this pr, i tried not to change anything where i didnt have to, to keep the diff between this and source material as small as possible. the intent was to preserve the spirit of the test refactoring & improvements from the other branch without complicating it by introducing other changes. however, i goofed a couple times and introduced some whitespace changes but ill claim they were for the best ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Copy link
Contributor

@nolangormley nolangormley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Left 2 comments, one of them is a vague code formatting question that doesn't need to be answered. The other one about local environments is the only important one imo.

@dshemetov
Copy link
Contributor

Is this duplicating some of the work in #927?

@krivard
Copy link
Contributor

krivard commented Aug 26, 2022

@dshemetov half maybe? it will supersede it. target of #927 is v3; target of this PR is v4

@melange396
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dshemetov kinda sorta in-a-way but not really, in that #927 duplicated work in #923, then #923 evolved into #931, and this is essentially merging all that from #931 back into the v4 development branch (without the merged key stuff).

i did give #927 a good look-through (though not in a very thorough or methodical way) but didnt see anything that seemed too different from what i got from #931. if theres something else there that you think i need to explore, im happy to give it a look!

Co-authored-by: Katie Mazaitis <[email protected]>
@melange396 melange396 merged commit cf14d76 into v4-schema-revisions-release-prep Aug 26, 2022
@melange396 melange396 deleted the merge_test_refactorizations branch August 26, 2022 21:48
@dshemetov
Copy link
Contributor

Gotcha, yea, I didn't add anything extra in #927 that wasn't in #923. I'll close that one.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants