Skip to content

Make test_create_decode_mask more specific by validating only m2g edges#104

Open
zweihuehner wants to merge 4 commits intomllam:mainfrom
zweihuehner:main
Open

Make test_create_decode_mask more specific by validating only m2g edges#104
zweihuehner wants to merge 4 commits intomllam:mainfrom
zweihuehner:main

Conversation

@zweihuehner
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@zweihuehner zweihuehner commented Mar 15, 2026

Describe your changes

Updated test_create_decode_mask to check only m2g (decoding) edges, not total edges. This is done by individually checking the edge components.

Focusing the test on m2g edges ensures it only checks the intended effect of the decode mask, making it independent of edge connectivity of g2m or m2m that might also use decode_mask in the future.

Issue Link

Solves #103

Type of change

  • 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue)
  • ✨ New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
  • 💥 Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • 📖 Documentation (Addition or improvements to documentation)

Checklist before requesting a review

  • My branch is up-to-date with the target branch - if not update your fork with the changes from the target branch (use pull with --rebase option if possible).
  • I have performed a self-review of my code
  • For any new/modified functions/classes I have added docstrings that clearly describe its purpose, expected inputs and returned values
  • I have placed in-line comments to clarify the intent of any hard-to-understand passages of my code
  • I have updated the documentation to cover introduced code changes
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have given the PR a name that clearly describes the change, written in imperative form (context).
  • I have requested a reviewer and an assignee (assignee is responsible for merging)

Checklist for reviewers

Each PR comes with its own improvements and flaws. The reviewer should check the following:

  • the code is readable
  • the code is well tested
  • the code is documented (including return types and parameters)
  • the code is easy to maintain

Author checklist after completed review

  • I have added a line to the CHANGELOG describing this change, in a section
    reflecting type of change (add section where missing):
    • added: when you have added new functionality
    • changed: when default behaviour of the code has been changed
    • fixes: when your contribution fixes a bug

Checklist for assignee

  • PR is up to date with the base branch
  • the tests pass
  • author has added an entry to the changelog (and designated the change as added, changed or fixed)
  • Once the PR is ready to be merged, squash commits and merge the PR.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Refines the decode-mask regression test to assert on the intended graph component (m2g decoding edges) rather than total edge count, making the test more future-proof as other components evolve.

Changes:

  • Update test_create_decode_mask to count only m2g edges when validating filtering behavior.
  • Adjust the test’s description to match the new, more specific assertion.
  • Add a changelog entry describing the test change.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File Description
tests/test_graph_creation.py Narrows the decode-mask assertion to m2g edges by filtering edges via the component attribute.
CHANGELOG.md Notes the test refinement under Unreleased changes.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
@zweihuehner zweihuehner changed the title Make test_create_decode_mask more specific Make test_create_decode_mask more specific by validating only m2g edges Mar 26, 2026
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.

2 participants