Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tests/ci: Use cypress tests for code coverage #265

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2023

Conversation

susnux
Copy link
Contributor

@susnux susnux commented Jul 6, 2023

Allow to instrument code for code coverage tests and save results to codecov.

…ructure

Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
@susnux susnux added the 3. to review Waiting for reviews label Jul 6, 2023
@susnux susnux requested a review from skjnldsv July 6, 2023 00:17
@susnux susnux force-pushed the feat/cypress-code-coverage branch from 4965f5c to 233321f Compare July 6, 2023 00:21
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 6, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch coverage has no change and project coverage change: +95.94 🎉

Comparison is base (99151f1) 0.00% compared to head (361ea0d) 95.94%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #265       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage        0   95.94%   +95.94%     
===========================================
  Files           0        5        +5     
  Lines           0       74       +74     
  Branches        0        1        +1     
===========================================
+ Hits            0       71       +71     
- Misses          0        3        +3     

see 5 files with indirect coverage changes

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

Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
@susnux susnux force-pushed the feat/cypress-code-coverage branch from 233321f to 361ea0d Compare July 6, 2023 00:39
Copy link
Contributor

@skjnldsv skjnldsv left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know, does cypress actually make sense from a coverage perspective?
I fee l like Jest really test the code compare to cypress ? 🤔

@susnux
Copy link
Contributor Author

susnux commented Jul 6, 2023

I think as this projects provides cypress commands we need to use cypress to test it and so we can use the coverage data from that tests (e2e tests in this project are basically unit tests for our commands).

@skjnldsv
Copy link
Contributor

skjnldsv commented Jul 6, 2023

Yeah, make sense! It's kind of a very specific use case :)

@skjnldsv skjnldsv merged commit 3f85374 into master Jul 6, 2023
@skjnldsv skjnldsv deleted the feat/cypress-code-coverage branch July 6, 2023 14:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
3. to review Waiting for reviews
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants