-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 118
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
Review XPASSing tests #3251
Comments
@zaneselvans A couple things re
|
I'll let @zschira chime in on this as well but I think the |
@katie-lamb I don't understand what you're saying about the first XPASS. It's a real bug... but the test is passing? It seems like these tests depend on substantial amounts of external real data right now. Are they intended only to test the functionality of Are some of these |
|
I didn't write these tests so this is only my guess, but yes I think they test the functionality of those functions and ideally would be entirely synthetic and turned into a unit test. This is what @aesharpe was referencing in the module docstring. The external real data that it depends on is the training data (contained in the |
If these are really meant to be unit tests, that would be great! Are there additional integration tests that should be run when all the data is processed? Or are there already defensive checks in the EIA-FERC entity matching code that makes sure things aren't out of whack? |
Probably all the consistency checks (implemented as assertions in the FERC to EIA module) should be moved into a model validation module or integration tests but I think we were planning for that after the experiment tracking goes in. |
Ok I put the changes that need to be made to address the larger problem with this test into #3256 . If we feel strongly about making these tests XFAIL right now, then #3257 is a patch to fix the following:
|
We have a number of tests or data validations which are reporting XPASS in the nightly builds, which we might want to review, in case they should no longer be marked XFAIL:
test/validate/mcoe_test.py::test_no_null_rows_mcoe[eia_annual-mcoe-0.8]
(I think this can be removed, see add newly allocatedfuel_consumed_mmbtu
intopudl.analysis.mcoe
module #2033)test/validate/mcoe_test.py::test_no_null_rows_mcoe[eia_monthly-mcoe-0.8]
(I think this can be removed, see add newly allocatedfuel_consumed_mmbtu
intopudl.analysis.mcoe
module #2033)test/integration/zenodo_datapackage_test.py::TestZenodoDatapackages::test_prod_datapackages
(This is here because Zenodo can be flaky w/ network hiccups)test/validate/plants_steam_ferc1_test.py::test_dupe_years_in_plant_id_ferc1[ferc1_annual]
(This should be passing now, @zschira will fix in Fix dataframe embedder op factory and tune ferc-ferc model #3247)test/integration/ferc1_eia_train_test.py::test_validate_override_fixes[verified4-report_year4-record_id_eia_override_14-record_id_ferc14-utility_id_pudl_ferc14]
See Tiny fix to make FERC to EIA tests xfail #3257test/integration/ferc1_eia_train_test.py::test_validate_override_fixes[verified5-report_year5-record_id_eia_override_15-record_id_ferc15-utility_id_pudl_ferc15]
See Tiny fix to make FERC to EIA tests xfail #3257test/integration/ferc1_eia_train_test.py::test_validate_override_fixes[verified6-report_year6-record_id_eia_override_16-record_id_ferc16-utility_id_pudl_ferc16]
See Tiny fix to make FERC to EIA tests xfail #3257test/integration/ferc1_eia_train_test.py::test_validate_override_fixes[verified3-report_year3-record_id_eia_override_13-record_id_ferc13-utility_id_pudl_ferc13]
@katie-lamb are the XFAIL labels for these FERC-EIA test/train tests still required / appropriate?
@zschira or @katie-lamb what do you think about the duplicate FERC years in a plant ID test? Should that be passing now?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: