make network planning tests more thorough #1307
Conversation
atravitz
changed the title
|
status in case anyone wants to take a look: I took a good pass through |
atravitz
force-pushed
the
stricter_network_planner_tests
branch
from
e60d392 to
665e8d6
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1307 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.66% 92.65% -2.02%
==========================================
Files 143 143
Lines 10957 10994 +37
==========================================
- Hits 10372 10186 -186
- Misses 585 808 +223
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
atravitz
force-pushed
the
stricter_network_planner_tests
branch
from
027ac83 to
e8f5755
Compare
IAlibay
left a comment
IAlibay
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I didn't look through test_network_planning thoroughly, but overall it seems to make sense to me.
| def generate_minimal_spanning_network( | ||
| ligands: Iterable[SmallMoleculeComponent], | ||
| mappers: Union[AtomMapper, Iterable[AtomMapper]], | ||
| # TODO: scorer is currently required, but not actually necessary. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth raising a separate issue?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Co-authored-by: Irfan Alibay <IAlibay@users.noreply.github.com>
|
No API break detected ✅ |
ahead of the konnektor integration PR (#927), I'm going through our existing network generation tests to make sure that 1) I understand the intended behavior well and 2) the tests effectively enforce the expected behavior.
Checklist
newsentryDevelopers certificate of origin