Add conversion script

[r0x0d]

Related to HMS-2894

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (730d909) 100.00% compared to head (c83396f) 100.00%.

❗ Current head c83396f differs from pull request most recent head 94b227b. Consider uploading reports for the commit 94b227b to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main       #22    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files            1         2     +1     
  Lines          173       351   +178     
==========================================
+ Hits           173       351   +178     

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

[r0x0d]

@andywaltlova, any suggestions to deal with the testing for the other script? I have currently duplicated the tests for now, but not sure if that's an appropriate decision here. I think we can discuss this a bit later to see how we want to deal with that.

[andywaltlova]

few comments, otherwise looks good, pretty similar to pre-conversion

for the tests.. 🤔 well of course we would ideally like the module and import functions from it but that is problematic for tasks, hmmm I think here we could at least change the approach little bit? since we have test_files for each function in scripts, we could keep one folder with tests, for whatever is common we would just import same function from both scripts and test both of them against the same expectations, if function is somehow special for one of the scripts we could extract that use case to subfolder.. something like

tests
   common #all functionality common between those two scripts
      test_function_name.py
      ....
   pre-conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior
   conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior

this approach kinda assumes there won't be more scripts 😅

I am also fine with the duplicate approach, it's not priority, we could extract this improvements to separate task for future us :D

[r0x0d]

few comments, otherwise looks good, pretty similar to pre-conversion

for the tests.. 🤔 well of course we would ideally like the module and import functions from it but that is problematic for tasks, hmmm I think here we could at least change the approach little bit? since we have test_files for each function in scripts, we could keep one folder with tests, for whatever is common we would just import same function from both scripts and test both of them against the same expectations, if function is somehow special for one of the scripts we could extract that use case to subfolder.. something like

tests
   common #all functionality common between those two scripts
      test_function_name.py
      ....
   pre-conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior
   conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior

this approach kinda assumes there won't be more scripts 😅

I am also fine with the duplicate approach, it's not priority, we could extract this improvements to separate task for future us :D

Yeah, I thought about that strategy, but then, I think there are a couple of things we may want to define before we start working on that. I like the idea, definitely, but I would say for now... We are kinda of okay with the duplication. Do you think it is worth it to tackle that separation for the tests in this PR, or this could be something for the future?

[andywaltlova]

few comments, otherwise looks good, pretty similar to pre-conversion
for the tests.. 🤔 well of course we would ideally like the module and import functions from it but that is problematic for tasks, hmmm I think here we could at least change the approach little bit? since we have test_files for each function in scripts, we could keep one folder with tests, for whatever is common we would just import same function from both scripts and test both of them against the same expectations, if function is somehow special for one of the scripts we could extract that use case to subfolder.. something like

tests
   common #all functionality common between those two scripts
      test_function_name.py
      ....
   pre-conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior
   conversion # test cases specific to pre-conversion behavior

this approach kinda assumes there won't be more scripts 😅
I am also fine with the duplicate approach, it's not priority, we could extract this improvements to separate task for future us :D

Yeah, I thought about that strategy, but then, I think there are a couple of things we may want to define before we start working on that. I like the idea, definitely, but I would say for now... We are kinda of okay with the duplication. Do you think it is worth it to tackle that separation for the tests in this PR, or this could be something for the future?

yeah as I said at the end, I am fine leaving it like that :)

[andywaltlova]

Just missing status prints for consistency, otherwise looks good - we will see on test day :)

[andywaltlova]

Just to make it consistent, otherwise looks good! 👍

[r0x0d]

Just to make it consistent, otherwise looks good! 👍

@andywaltlova, updated the preconversion script too: #27

[andywaltlova]

Just to make it consistent, otherwise looks good! 👍

@andywaltlova, updated the preconversion script too: #27

yep both approved! :)