SpeziQuestionnaire

[pauljohanneskraft]

SpeziQuestionnaire

♻️ Current situation & Problem

Link any open issues or pull requests (PRs) related to this PR. Please ensure that all non-trivial PRs are first tracked and discussed in an existing GitHub issue or discussion.

⚙️ Release Notes

Add a bullet point list summary of the feature and possible migration guides if this is a breaking change so this section can be added to the release notes.
Include code snippets that provide examples of the feature implemented or links to the documentation if it appends or changes the public interface.

📚 Documentation

Please ensure that you properly document any additions in conformance to Spezi Documentation Guide.
You can use this section to describe your solution, but we encourage contributors to document your reasoning and changes using in-line documentation.

✅ Testing

Please ensure that the PR meets the testing requirements set by CodeCov and that new functionality is appropriately tested.
This section describes important information about the tests and why some elements might not be testable.

📝 Code of Conduct & Contributing Guidelines

By submitting creating this pull request, you agree to follow our Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines:

• I agree to follow the Code of Conduct and Contributing Guidelines.

[pauljohanneskraft]

I unfortunately didn't manage to get the previews and tests to work with this and didn't have the time yet to further investigate. Since the previous implementation also didn't include tests for this part, I assume that it isn't easily possible...

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 102 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 39.95%. Comparing base (f5ee17f) to head (44e7c78).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ehf/questionnaire/spezi/QuestionnaireComposable.kt	0.00%	88 Missing ⚠️
.../bdh/engagehf/questionnaire/QuestionnaireScreen.kt	0.00%	13 Missing ⚠️
...ngagehf/questionnaire/spezi/QuestionnaireResult.kt	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #142      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     40.25%   39.95%   -0.29%     
  Complexity      834      834              
============================================
  Files           294      296       +2     
  Lines         11361    11442      +81     
  Branches       1692     1718      +26     
============================================
- Hits           4572     4571       -1     
- Misses         6319     6400      +81     
- Partials        470      471       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
uitests	36.51% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
unittests	31.42% <0.00%> (-0.23%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...ngagehf/questionnaire/spezi/QuestionnaireResult.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
.../bdh/engagehf/questionnaire/QuestionnaireScreen.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ehf/questionnaire/spezi/QuestionnaireComposable.kt	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f5ee17f...44e7c78. Read the comment docs.

[pauljohanneskraft]

The failing tests seem to be related to the new dependencies, since I didn't want to put my files in the app-module, so ready for review anyways and either please let me know how to fix this or I will just put them somewhere else.

After merging all the open PRs, we should think about the reorganization anyways probably, but I'm not sure, whether I want to do that before submission

[eldcn]

Looks good for now and from my side we can merge :) As discussed, we should consider in a later step restructuring into separate modules

[pauljohanneskraft]

Due to the missing code coverage reporting in that package, you will probably need to merge without that check - would that work and is my assumption right? Since the test should actually cover that code.... @eldcn