Needed Code Coverage > 75% #63
Conversation
…happy; not problem as instance is created via getinstance()
|
@bjanderson70 this is great work! Thank you sooo much! Looks great to me. But lets have @ImJohnMDaniel review as he added the platform cache feature as well. |
… into injected components; ie. my_comp.find("my_item").find("di-component").callMyMethod()
…ned component of change
deploy from this repo ... until changes (pull requests) are accepted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall great appreciation is extended for addressing. I know that other AEP projects could use test coverage help.
Good job and thank you!!!
Only show-stoppers for me are the questions concerning:
- Suggestion to use third-party plugins for installation in
README.md. di_PlatformCache.clslogging functionality.
I did notice that in some classes some effort was put forth in cleaning up "pretty code" matters, but in the new test classes, some "pretty code" inconsistencies exist -- dangling new lines, unnecessary comments, etc. Although not a show stopper, would it be within your capacity to tidy-up those inconsistencies?
…eKeyIndexMap" as I was not certain if originator had a purpose with that code
|
I just took a deeper look at this - agree with sentiment around not including the scratch org config nor the custom CLI plugin reference since its more of personal preference thing. Overall the code coverage part of this is good. However this PR does also include an enhancement to the way the aura/lwc components monitor for attribute changes (vs just setup on init). Again this is good - and on this occasion to move this forward fine to be part of the PR IMHO - but in future its best to submit one feature / enhancement per PR. @ImJohnMDaniel is going to take a further look later today. Thank you for the submission. |
|
@bjanderson70 -- Thanks again for all of this work. It is very much appreciated. |
===========
++ otherwise, throws an exception
++ false assumption the partition is present, if enabled in metadata
This change is