Should we add Codecov?

[joydeep049]

A lot of the existing code doesn't have proper documentation yet.
Adding docstrings to functions and classes would improve the readability to a great extent, and adding codecov to check docstring coverage would be the appropriate way to start emphasizing proper documentation.

cc @cyclotruc

[filipchristiansen]

@joydeep049

• I have added docstrings to all functions, classes, and modules in this PR, and enforced docstring existence using darglint as part of our CI pipeline (and pre-commit hooks). However, I didn’t enforce docstrings for the test functions yet.
• I’m not sure if Codecov can directly check for docstring coverage, but it makes sense to integrate it once we have a solid testing setup. We could upload the pytest test report to Codecov to track it.
• I suggested to @cyclotruc to add Codecov for test coverage, but he preferred to wait until we have more structured tests in place, as the current ones are not fully structured yet. However, I agree that Codecov should be added at some point.

[joydeep049]

For docstring coverage check, we can add interrogate to our CI. That would require every file to have atleast 80% docstring coverage for the CI to pass.

[cyclotruc]

For docstring coverage check, we can add interrogate to our CI. That would require every file to have atleast 80% docstring coverage for the CI to pass.

It sounds too strict for now, I think those rules should come progressively as the repo gets more complex

[joydeep049]

For docstring coverage check, we can add interrogate to our CI. That would require every file to have atleast 80% docstring coverage for the CI to pass.

It sounds too strict for now, I think those rules should come progressively as the repo gets more complex

I agree. Putting it in the CI might be too strict for now. We can advise contributors to run interrogate locally to make sure they have decent coverage.

@cyclotruc