Rise total repo testing to 97%

[adnanhemani]

Due to the relatively-high activity on this repo, I'm putting down one of my larger goals in hopes that maybe people will help chip in on this!

I'm looking to rise the total repo testing percentage up to 97+% from the current 89% (I'll consider this issue closed at 97%).

For those just starting out with this, here's a few pointers:

• Take a look at the Coveralls report on the master branch. You can click on individual files after expanding the repo "Tree" on this page.
• Each source file will show green or red if a test covers a line of code. Of course, less red is better - and adding tests to our test suite will help make those "red" lines of code into "green" ones :)
• The test suite can be found here. You can put new tests in either the respective ipynb file or the PyTest files. You should always try to instrument the test using the PyTest file first - but if the output of a function is a graph or something that isn't easily testable by using assert statements, you can put it in the ipynb file.

Last thing, please try to make as many individual PRs on this as possible - only group test changes into the same PR if they're pertaining to the same function/functionality. Otherwise, create separate PRs for all new changes, please!

Thanks to all the new contributors to this repo - we appreciate your help!

[davidwagner]

@MarthaDs, great, would be wonderful to have help! I would not anticipate assigning a single individual to this issue -- rather, I imagine we'll get there through incremental progress, and that seems like something that we could easily have multiple people working on. Can I encourage you to pick some part of the code and prepare a small Pull Request that increases coverage on that code?

[athossampayo]

Did two PRs related, hope it's all good there. Separated in two PRs as asked too. Any problem let me know! 🚀

[davidwagner]

Hi all, thank you for your willingness to contribute! We'd welcome your help. No need to request permission to contribute -- you are welcome to find a spot where we could have better test coverage, write a useful test, and submit a PR adding that test, and we'll review the PR when we're able. I'm a bit slow in getting to them, and I apologize in advance for that. I suggest breaking changes down into small PRs (as e.g. jr-42 has been doing).

[adnanhemani]

As the Github Issue status suggests, this is still open. Please follow @davidwagner's comment above for potential changes.

[adnanhemani]

@samanth2012 please view comments above: #476 (comment)

Contributing to open-source is not a form of tutoring, it requires contributors to take initiative and work on issues/feature requests they (or others) have seen in the repository and attempt to fix them without oversight from repository maintainers. Please do not ask for support on "how to get started" or "guidance on how to contribute", everything you need to contribute is located within this repository in the Markdown files. Hope this helps.

[add-itya]

I was looking at the Coveralls report link, and when I expand the "Tree" section and select the "tables.py" file, it gives me a gateway error. Is there any workaround for this?

[adnanhemani]

@add-itya I've noticed this too :( it's likely a service issue with Coveralls. In the meantime, you can check out the repo and run the tests locally as well. You can generate the local report for coverage and use that too

[davidwagner]

@add-itya If you're still experiencing this, please raise it in a new, separate issue. Coveralls seems working fine now -- at least, I don't see any problems when I try it.