Exclude explores #172
Exclude explores #172
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #172 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.81% 70.26% +0.44%
==========================================
Files 10 10
Lines 795 807 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 555 567 +12
Misses 240 240
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@joshtemple I think I made a bit of a meal of rebasing that, somehow, but this should now be good. |
| excluded_explores = {} | ||
| for model in excluded_models: | ||
| # Expand wildcard operator to include all specified or discovered explores | ||
| excluded_explore_names = exclusion[model.name] | ||
| if "*" in excluded_explore_names: | ||
| excluded_explore_names.remove("*") | ||
| excluded_explore_names.update( | ||
| set(explore.name for explore in model.explores) | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If there's a situation with model_A.explore_A and model_B.explore_A, and the --exclude argument is model_A.explore_A, would this still preserve explore_A in model_B? Any way we can add this case to the unit tests?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It will still preserve it. The explores to exclude are stored in lists against a key of the model name. We then only check against the explores within a given model: https://github.com/spectacles-ci/spectacles/pull/172/files#diff-cbee2ab0268f8f001868af4ca066ba04R228-R232
I'll definitely add some tests to confirm that though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joshtemple I've confirmed this is the case and have added an additional test test_build_project_one_ambiguous_explore_excluded to verify so.
I also actually re-factored some of the other tests to make the selection easier.
Co-Authored-By: Josh Temple <[email protected]>
No description provided.