Test_parse_rgb_number

README.md

@@ -38,14 +38,22 @@ Running `coverage html` and opening the document in the browser gives the follow
 
 <Provide the same kind of information provided for Function 1>
 
-Thijmen
+#### Thijmen
 
 \_human_join
 
 [commit](https://github.com/tthijm/sep/commit/88c98ebc05c4d67bcdce7d3046ffa786f79b9284)
 
 ![](./assets/_human_join_custom.png)
 
+#### Frank
+
+parse_rgb_number
+
+[commit](https://github.com/tthijm/sep/commit/45156c574d1be11a2da25e0f74efe866d3e2cc97)
+
+![](./assets/parse_rgb_number_custom.png)
+
 ## Coverage improvement
 
 ### Individual tests
@@ -68,7 +76,7 @@ Thijmen
 
 <Provide the same kind of information provided for Test 1>
 
-Thijmen
+#### Thijmen
 
 test\_\_human_join
 
@@ -81,6 +89,18 @@ test\_\_human_join
 The coverage improvement is +100%.
 The coverage has been improved, because `_human_join` used to not be tested, while the new `test__human_join` considers every branch to be taken.
 
+#### Frank
+
+test_from_str_failures
+
+[commit](https://github.com/tthijm/sep/commit/51a7b35a9b4af8058cc9d513085b02306ae63a43)
+
+![](./assets/parse_rgb_number_before.png)
+
+![](./assets/parse_rgb_number_after.png)
+
+The coverage of the function has improved from the original 78% to 100%, since the other two branches (1 and 3) were also covered.
+
 ### Overall
 
 <Provide a screenshot of the old coverage results by running an existing tool (the same as you already showed above)>

tests/test_colour.py

@@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ def test_from_str(value, expected):
         'rgb(30, -1, 60)',
         'invalid(a, b, c)',
         'rgb(',
+        'rgb(120%,100%,90%)',
+        'rgb(320,300,300)',
     ],
 )
 def test_from_str_failures(value):