Skip to content

Clarify gold level quality scale test requirements #1194

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
frenck merged 1 commit into from
Jan 24, 2022
Merged

Clarify gold level quality scale test requirements #1194

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 4 additions & 2 deletions docs/integration_quality_scale_index.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -36,12 +36,14 @@ This is a solid integration that is able to survive poor conditions and can be c
- Satisfying all Silver level requirements.
- Configurable via config entries.
- Don't allow configuring already configured device/service (example: no 2 entries for same hub)
- Tests for the config flow
- Discoverable (if available)
- Set unique ID in config flow (if available)
- Raise `ConfigEntryNotReady` if unable to connect during entry setup (if appropriate)
- Entities have device info (if available) ([docs](device_registry_index.md#defining-devices))
- Tests for fetching data from the integration and controlling it ([docs](development_testing.md))
- Tests
- Full test coverage for the config flow
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ludeeus ludeeus Jan 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is required for all config_flows regardless of quality scale?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@frenck frenck Jan 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Right, that might be another error. This line was simply moved a bit from above.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@thecode thecode Jan 24, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, but if I am not wrong, some of the ones that are already merged are missing coverage. I did not add this as a new requirement, just moved it to the "Tests" section.

- Above average test coverage for all integration modules
- Tests for fetching data from the integration and controlling it ([docs](development_testing.md))
- Has a code owner ([docs](creating_integration_manifest.md#code-owners))
- Entities only subscribe to updates inside `async_added_to_hass` and unsubscribe inside `async_will_remove_from_hass` ([docs](core/entity.md#lifecycle-hooks))
- Entities have correct device classes where appropriate ([docs](core/entity.md#generic-properties))
Expand Down