Planning about easyvvuq HOT 8 CLOSED

Testing
I've had recommended the following packages:

1. Pytest (https://docs.pytest.org/en/latest/)
2. Behave (https://behave.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)
3. Hypothesis (https://hypothesis.readthedocs.io/en/latest/)

Any thoughts?

from easyvvuq.

@dww100 We are using Pytest with FabSim3, so using that will make it easier for VECMA members to switch development effort between the two tools.

from easyvvuq.

@dww100 In terms of release dates, perhaps we can synchronize them with the core preliminary release dates, which occur every three months? The last one was a few days ago, and the next one would be in early January.

Would that schedule make sense? Then we can introduce EasyVVUQ as part of the next VECMAtk release, and ask current Alpha users to also perform tests on that toolkit.

from easyvvuq.

@djgroen I think we should definitely aim to sync a version to that release schedule but these should happen in the next month or so. The goal (from my end at least) is that v0.1 is the minimal viable product - with a more or less stable design to the key elements - the Campaign and base classes for UQPs and VVPs. That should mean we have pretty well established 'contracts' to allow it to be plugged into other toolkit members.

from easyvvuq.

@dww100 Would it be feasible to have v0.1 ready by October 17th, so that we can discuss and work towards integrating that part with FabSim3 during the VECMAtk meeting?

You could then aim for another release in late November, which would allow my new VECMA post doc Hamid to test it out (he starts Dec 1st), and then do a third release during the regular schedule in January?

from easyvvuq.

@djgroen It is difficult to say. The main issue is that Robin is away for a week and two of the steps to needed for v0.1 are quite large design decisions.

That said the basics of how we intend at least UQPs to work is available in decoder-design which is ready now, but not approved/checked by Robin.

Once solutions to the issues in v0.1 are available I think other things could happen quickly. We should make a plan in mid-December about what the January release should look like.

from easyvvuq.

@djgroen Do you have much experience of using pytest to create functional tests?

I've only ever seen it in terms of unit tests and integration tests. To my mind functional and integration tests are a) more likely to actually get written and b) somewhat easier to understand. What I like about Hypothesis and Behave is that they seem more centred on thinking of the story of use cases - the sort of thing that makes good functional tests.

from easyvvuq.

@dww100 I know it is supported in Pytest, but I don't have direct experience with it. Vytautas Jancauskas would be the person to ask about that :).

In FabSim3 the difference between unit tests and functional tests is quite blurry, as one can be interpreted as the other in a lot of cases.

from easyvvuq.