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

Using swc instead of ts-jest #348

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 20, 2023
Merged

Conversation

gagoar
Copy link
Owner

@gagoar gagoar commented Mar 20, 2023

Description

We always wanna go faster. That's a given. But more so when these are tests.

I've been using SWC in other projects, and it was a good time to change.

I've also added a hook for execute so we can play with the CLI directly.

Finally action/setup-node can detect the node version used from the .nvmrc file. So no need to use the reusable workflow I was using before.

@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4463741780

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 4458643107: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 245
Relevant Lines: 245

💛 - Coveralls

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 20, 2023

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (dc6acfc) 100.00% compared to head (5aedbf5) 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #348   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           10        10           
  Lines          262       262           
  Branches        57        56    -1     
=========================================
  Hits           262       262           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 100.00% <ø> (ø)

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

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

@gagoar gagoar merged commit 2abc457 into master Mar 20, 2023
@gagoar gagoar deleted the gg/using-swc-instead-of-ts-jest branch March 20, 2023 01:25
@gagoar gagoar mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2023
gagoar added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2023
Bumping version 2.2.0
That comes with:
- Preserve block position
[`#347`](#347)
- ChatGPT rewrote it
[`#349`](#349)
- Using swc instead of ts-jest
[`#348`](#348)
- Update Node.js to v16.19.1
[`#341`](#341)
- Update dependency husky to v8.0.3
[`#339`](#339)
- adding composite action to use codeowners-generator in a workflow
[`#337`](#337)
- 2.1.5
[`#346`](#346)
- Preserve block position (#347)
[`#343`](#343)
- adding composite action to use codeowners-generator in a workflow
(#337)
[`#335`](#335)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants