Improve test suite for bibtex #46
Conversation
As defined in BibTEX version 0.99b https://ctan.javinator9889.com/biblio/bibtex/base/btxdoc.pdf
Some changes in default parsing (snapshot), but results are still ok
|
Ping @matthewwiese |
|
If you're looking for additional testing material, try the Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies whose entries contain their BibTeX source. I discovered it thanks to this Academia StackExchange comment some time back. Also, I think increasing coverage of malformed input is important. Currently there appears to be only two cases (1, 2) of error checking; if the effort will be made to rewrite the package then making sure it fails gracefully is crucial. Otherwise, glad to see your enthusiasm on this! |
|
HI @matthewwiese : I tried to add more test on errors due to unbalanced braces, etc (see also #42 and UPDATE: Now not skipped in #47 |
|
Hi @coatless , did you have the chance of having a look on this? Regards |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dieghernan I did! The upgrade to testthat 3e looks great! Only had a few minor notes. Happy to merge the test in as-is.
|
|
||
| test_that("arrange.authors when family names have white space #6", { | ||
| tmp <- tempfile(fileext = ".bib") | ||
| entry <- "@Article{newspaper, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should these be written in a stand alone file within inst/bib/* instead of directly inline with the test?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good idea, already done except for issue #35 , that specifically ask for reading from a string, not a file
| @@ -47,7 +47,8 @@ Depends: | |||
| Imports: | |||
| utils | |||
| Suggests: | |||
| testthat | |||
| testthat (>= 3.0.0) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add yourself as an author in the DESCRIPTION file.
| test_that("Test book-full", { | ||
| bib <- system.file("bib/xampl_standard.bib", package = "bibtex") | ||
|
|
||
| out <- suppressMessages(read.bib(bib)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we are suppressing diagnostic messages here? Should we just set verbose = FALSE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was for not cluttering the test results with messages. I have divided the xampl in two, one with messages (tested on the first tests) and another without them.
| @@ -23,6 +23,15 @@ jobs: | |||
| - {os: ubuntu-latest, r: 'devel', http-user-agent: 'release'} | |||
| - {os: ubuntu-latest, r: 'release'} | |||
| - {os: ubuntu-latest, r: 'oldrel/1'} | |||
| - {os: ubuntu-latest, r: 'oldrel/2'} | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note to self, we should upgrade to the latest action calls.
|
Thanks @coatless, I made some minor amendments following your comments. Ready for merge |
This PR increases the test suite for
bibtexpackage (Phase 1: Current state / Testing on #45 ). I tried to cover as many cases as I can, including also some additional .bib files for testing purposes:do_read_bib()(tests/testthat/test-do_read_bib.R) reading non-standard BiBTeX entries that is used on https://github.com/ropensci/RefManageR (@mwmclean).The tests mainly covers the R source code. It seems to be that a lot of the C code is not currently used (¿?).
Additionally, I upgraded testthat version to 3 (this allows the use of snapshots, that would be useful for testing Phase 2) and improved the R-CMD-Check action to increase the number of platforms on which the package is tested.
Any further improvements on the testing welcomed.
PS: Note that neither R not C code has been modified so far.