implement a skip_config_creation option in get_user_info #250
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #250 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 380 390 +10
=========================================
+ Hits 380 390 +10
|
| assert config.get("email") == expected_email | ||
| config = get_user_info(args, skip_config_creation=True) | ||
| assert config.get("username") == expected_username | ||
| assert config.get("email") == expected_email |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like we can reuse this run_test function for most test cases for different skip_config_creation except when there're no inputs or files, so I added this here
| # Test skipping config creation, expecting None values | ||
| config = get_user_info(args, skip_config_creation=True) | ||
| assert config.get("username") is None | ||
| assert config.get("email") is None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have to rewrite this from run_test for no args/inputs/config files
haha, that was a mistake on my part. I am not sure tbh. I am ok with either "user-data* or "user-info". @bobleesj @yucongalicechen which do you think is more obvious? |
| assert config.get("email") == expected_email | ||
|
|
||
| # Test skipping config creation, expecting None values | ||
| config = get_user_info(args, skip_config_creation=True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am a little confused here....isn't this getting args as written?
|
closed as replaced by #253 |
2 participants
closes #244
@sbillinge ready for some feedback
btw I see in the docs you used
get_user_datainstead ofget_user_infoat a couple places, which seems to be a better name, shall we change toget_user_datainstead?