Standards and Quality Assurance

Input Robustness

The model allows flexible inputs. While the Validator checks for data types and units, physically infeasible inputs (e.g., negative production) might be mathematically processed.

• Warning: The system will print warnings if negative outputs are detected. Users are advised to check input boundaries in their calling scripts.

Automated Testing

The model utilizes Continuous Integration (CI) with tests for units and integration using unittest, and it includes a minimum viable test case based on the cement example.

To improve robustness and transparency, we commit to the following:

• Code Coverage: A code coverage report will be generated and published with the CI results to clearly show the percentage of tested code.

• Weird Input: The test suite will be expanded to include testing with “weird input” (e.g., boundary, zero, or highly improbable values) to ensure proper input checks are guaranteed.

• Exception Handling: Tests for all ValueError exception handlings will be implemented to ensure that error paths are also correctly checked.

Versioning

The model uses versioning, and we commit to following Semantic Versioning (SemVer) for future releases to clearly denote breaking (major), feature (minor), and patch (patch) changes. Dependency compatibility is explicitly handled via requirements.txt.

Coding standards

The code adheres to both PEP 8 and PEP 257 guidelines. PEP 8 ensures that the code maintains a uniform style, promoting readability and consistency throughout the project. Meanwhile, PEP 257 provides conventions for writing docstrings, ensuring that the documentation is clear and informative. Together, these guidelines enhance the overall quality and maintainability of the codebase.