Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make tests have more realistic search() usage #691

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

lognaturel
Copy link
Contributor

Follow-up to #690

Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?

This doesn't make any substantive change so I considered not doing it but I do think it's likely to help us in the future.

search(param.csv) uses a 1-element inline list to configure how it queries param.csv. It's only implemented in Collect and doesn't have a formal spec. I believe it gives an error if the supplied list has more than one element.

What are the regression risks?

Test-only change so none.

Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue here and include the link below.

No.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:

  • included test cases for core behavior and edge cases in tests
  • run nosetests and verified all tests pass
  • run black pyxform tests to format code
  • verified that any code or assets from external sources are properly credited in comments

@@ -1556,48 +1556,22 @@ def test_choice_name_containing_dash_output_itext(self):
class TestTranslationsSearchAppearance(PyxformTestCase):
"""Translations behaviour with the search() appearance."""

def test_shared_choice_list(self):
"""Should include translation for search() items, sharing the choice list"""
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I couldn't understand the purpose of this test! I don't think there's any realistic case in which the search() configuration list would be used elsewhere. But also that's not what the test seemed to do (and maybe that's why the PR was marked as draft)

@lognaturel
Copy link
Contributor Author

Replaced by #693

@lognaturel lognaturel closed this Jan 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant