-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 271
test: be more lenient on jsx/tsx test coverage #468
Conversation
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/superset/superset-ui/gcq8ntdos |
Kind of feel maybe we should just get rid of the |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #468 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 22.25% 22.36% +0.11%
==========================================
Files 265 266 +1
Lines 6521 6549 +28
Branches 591 605 +14
==========================================
+ Hits 1451 1465 +14
- Misses 5033 5047 +14
Partials 37 37
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
codecov.yml
Outdated
- packages | ||
- packages/**/*.{js|ts}$ | ||
core-packages-tsx: | ||
target: 10% |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
100%
?
Could we combine the core-packages-ts
and core-packages-tsx
section then add the ignore
path for control-utils
's {t|j}sx
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably not 100% since relaxing this constraint on {j|t}sx
is the point. That said, the number can be negotiated/adjusted at any point. 50%? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
React modules don't have to have 100% unit-test coverages.
React modules don't have to have 100% unit-test coverages.
🏆 Enhancements
🏠 Internal