Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Whoops, a commit called "--amend". Bit of a giveaway !! |
bjlittle
reviewed
Oct 7, 2021
bjlittle
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2021
Member
bjlittle
left a comment
bjlittle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pp-mo A small change that makes a big difference... this is now looking really solid.
With regards to testing coverage, I'd err on the side of what we have is perfectly adequate without over engineering it. We're at the stage where we need to get some user mileage on the functionality to tease out any further issues... so I'm totally fine with what we have 👍
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
🚀 Pull Request
Description
Fixes to outstanding problems we noticed in #4318
The repr_html problem is very simple.
The mesh one is rather embarassing, because it also affects saving multiple cubes with the same mesh, which is a serious goof.
If I’d just assertCDL-snapshotted everything, I guess I’d have spotted this. But I didn’t want to do that.
If anyone thinks this could be strategically important, I could add more thorough testing of the meshes in each testcase...
E.G. I did consider a utility checking routine in #4318 that can check what things are present in each mesh.
Given the problem here, I think it would also require 'expected results' args, enabling it to detect unexpected "extras" that should not be there -- since extra coord variables aren't easily (automatically) identifiable as something that 'should' be attached to a mesh, unlike connectivites where the 'cf_role' announces it.
As I say, I did consider this for #4318, but considered it overkill.
Consult Iris pull request check list