Add a bit more test coverage for datacube ext

[jsignell]

Related Issue(s):

• Closes Tests and documentation for Datacube extension #324

Description:

There is already a fair bit of documentation in there, but I improved the test coverage a bit. This is a very good example of an extension class that could/should be substantially simplified in the 2.0 release

PR Checklist:

• pre-commit hooks pass locally
• Tests pass (run scripts/test)
• Documentation has been updated to reflect changes, if applicable
• This PR maintains or improves overall codebase code coverage.
• Changes are added to the CHANGELOG. See the docs for information about adding to the changelog.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 81.81% and project coverage change: +0.74 🎉

Comparison is base (d6531a5) 91.25% compared to head (38e589b) 91.99%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1143      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.25%   91.99%   +0.74%     
==========================================
  Files          49       49              
  Lines        6642     6611      -31     
  Branches      981      978       -3     
==========================================
+ Hits         6061     6082      +21     
+ Misses        408      356      -52     
  Partials      173      173              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pystac/extensions/datacube.py	80.06% <81.81%> (+13.59%)	⬆️

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[jsignell]

Ok so patch coverage is low, but a significant improvement 🤷 seems to me like it would be ok to override that check, but I could probably also coverage up high enough with another hour or so of work. Just let me know what makes more sense to you @gadomski

[gadomski]

Nah, let's ignore the patch ❌, it seems like too much work to test out all the extension 🍝.

[jpolchlo]

Minor points of confusion, but LGTM

[jsignell]

@gadomski if this one merges it is maybe a little concerning because it was failing coverage. It is fine in this case as mentioned above, but just wanted to flag this.

[gadomski]

if this one merges it is maybe a little concerning because it was failing coverage.

codecov/patch is an optional check, so its not surprising it merged. I'm a little hesitant to make it required, since patch coverage can be so fiddly to get right.

[jsignell]

nice! Ok I just hadn't noticed it was explicitly optional