yaml validation

[zoldello]

No description provided.

[zoldello]

This file is shared with yaml creator. I tried using git subtree to centralize the access. But had issues with github actions on this app and react with the yaml creator. It would was a time-consuming battle on two fronts. So, I scrapped the idea and copied the file. In the future, I may create a new repo with only validation files. That should not cause github action issues or react issues.

[zoldello]

I needed a set up where Unit test (meant to be fast and ran constantly) could easily be ran separate from other test (like integration test that are slow and meant to run on occasions like before push.) So, I created a folder. An option would of had been to add unit-test marker. But it felt jacky and brittle as it fails if one person does not follow convention.

[zoldello]

The unit test for convert_yaml are failing and need to be modified as task_epochs associated_files and associated_video_files is an integer rather than an array. The unit test are failing due to to this and fixing them are beyond this PR scope.

[samuelbray32]

Did the yaml generator recently change what it produces for those (in the past month or so)? The yaml it's testing with comes from the yaml generator, so if this is the format people will have when they use the converter then should the validator accept that?

Or am I misunderstanding the issue?

[zoldello]

It has been the way it has been for like two of three months. task.task_epochs is an array and associated_files.task_epochs and associated_video_files.task_epochs are integers.

[zoldello]

Github action is and fixing it is beyond the scope of this ticket. I different ticket will address it.

[zoldello]

in github action, we run -

pytest --doctest-modules -v --pyargs src/spikegadgets_to_nwb

That does not like two test with the same name regardless of being in different location. So, I added "_it" to this.

[edeno]

@zoldello where are we on this?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 2 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (19c41e6) 91.25% compared to head (03de7ed) 91.63%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #25      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.25%   91.63%   +0.38%     
==========================================
  Files          20       24       +4     
  Lines        2058     2177     +119     
==========================================
+ Hits         1878     1995     +117     
- Misses        180      182       +2     

Files	Coverage Δ
src/spikegadgets_to_nwb/metadata_validation.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/integration-tests/test_metadata_validation_it.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
..._nwb/tests/test_data/test_metadata_dict_samples.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...kegadgets_to_nwb/tests/test_metadata_validation.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/spikegadgets_to_nwb/convert_yaml.py	94.91% <66.66%> (-1.52%)	⬇️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zoldello]

@samuelbray32 @edeno rebased and test passed.