Closing test coverage gap

- Modified `experiments.py` to make sure that we reject parsing config files with no `task` and `experiment_name`
- Added 3 tests to test config file parsing, to start with
- Added config file template for these tests
Yeah, I noticed that. My next set of commit includes a fix for this.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:02 AM Dan Blanchard <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In tests/test_input.py:
>
> > +
> > +        config_template_path = join(_my_dir, 'configs',
> > +                                    'test_config_parsing.template.cfg')
> > +        config_path = fill_in_config_paths(config_template_path,
> > +                                           values_to_fill_dict, sub_prefix)
> > +
> > +        assert_raises(ValueError, _parse_config_file, config_path)
> > +
> > +        if sub_prefix == 'both_train_path_and_file':
> > +            train_fh.close()
> > +
> > +
> > +def test_config_parsing_bad_test():
> > +    """
> > +    Test to ensure config file parsing raises an error with invalid test
> > +    path or file specifications
>
> Only the first line of word-wrapped docstrings show up when you run nosetests
> -v, so you either want to make these shorter, or just turn them into #
> comments (and just let the function name be the name of the test).
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/EducationalTestingService/skll/pull/203/files#r20223968>
> .
>