Skip to content

Test Strategy

A useful test strategy names what evidence is needed and why shallow coverage is not enough.

For bijux-proteomics-knowledge, the test story should show how the package handles imperfect evidence without hiding contradiction, confidence, or review-state drift.

Strategy Model

flowchart TB
    records["claims and evidence records"]
    meaning["contradiction and confidence tests"]
    review["review-state and persistence proof"]
    fixtures["imperfect and conflicting fixtures"]
    release["release confidence"]

    records --> meaning
    meaning --> review
    review --> fixtures
    fixtures --> release

This page should make it obvious that the package is not defending one ideal path. The real proof comes from preserving meaning under messy evidence and stored-state pressure.

Review Rules

  • favor contradiction, confidence, and review-state tests over generic coverage claims
  • cover persistence cases where knowledge meaning could drift silently
  • use fixtures that show imperfect or conflicting evidence, not just ideal cases

First Proof Check

  • packages/bijux-proteomics-knowledge/tests
  • src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/claims.py and evidence.py
  • src/bijux_proteomics_knowledge/confidence/segments.py and review.py

Design Pressure

The common drift is to optimize for storage or coverage shape while leaving contradiction handling and downstream interpretation less clearly defended.