Increase test coverage #1058
Merged
Increase test coverage #1058
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
charlieegan3
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2024
I started looking into increasing the test coverage the other day, and wow, there really turned out to be some bugs under those stones! While there are a few silly additions here just for coverage, many of the changes made here uncovered issues that when fixed had Regal report many issues in our own code! So this was definitely a worthwhile endevour. Will continue this work for sure, but to avoid it becoming a monster, and to leave it in a good state, I'll follow up with more PRs later. Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
charlieegan3
force-pushed
the
increase-coverage
branch
from
59da7e7 to
c3c5900
Compare
anderseknert
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2024
Like with previous PR aiming to increase our test coverage (#1058), doing so this time revealed a few places where code was unused, or could be rewritten to be better optimized, removed, or made easier to read. One find that is yet to be addressed here is how we copy the whole `ast.found.refs` object into `ast.all_refs`, which surely comes with a cost that seems unnecessary, given we can use `ast.found.refs` directly instead. But since there are a few consumers, and they are not **exactly** identical (`all_refs` contains import refs too), I'll follow up on that in a later PR. I'm also adding the codecov badge to the README to make it easy to see when our coverage drops. But I'm not as convinced we should fail PRs when coverage isn't 100% as I was before, as it might make for a worse contributor experience. Fixes #918 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
anderseknert
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2024
Like with previous PR aiming to increase our test coverage (#1058), doing so this time revealed a few places where code was unused, or could be rewritten to be better optimized, removed, or made easier to read. One find that is yet to be addressed here is how we copy the whole `ast.found.refs` object into `ast.all_refs`, which surely comes with a cost that seems unnecessary, given we can use `ast.found.refs` directly instead. But since there are a few consumers, and they are not **exactly** identical (`all_refs` contains import refs too), I'll follow up on that in a later PR. I'm also adding the codecov badge to the README to make it easy to see when our coverage drops. But I'm not as convinced we should fail PRs when coverage isn't 100% as I was before, as it might make for a worse contributor experience. Fixes #918 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
anderseknert
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2024
Like with previous PR aiming to increase our test coverage (#1058), doing so this time revealed a few places where code was unused, or could be rewritten to be better optimized, removed, or made easier to read. One find that is yet to be addressed here is how we copy the whole `ast.found.refs` object into `ast.all_refs`, which surely comes with a cost that seems unnecessary, given we can use `ast.found.refs` directly instead. But since there are a few consumers, and they are not **exactly** identical (`all_refs` contains import refs too), I'll follow up on that in a later PR. I'm also adding the codecov badge to the README to make it easy to see when our coverage drops. But I'm not as convinced we should fail PRs when coverage isn't 100% as I was before, as it might make for a worse contributor experience. Fixes #918 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
Merged
anderseknert
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 8, 2024
Like with previous PR aiming to increase our test coverage (#1058), doing so this time revealed a few places where code was unused, or could be rewritten to be better optimized, removed, or made easier to read. One find that is yet to be addressed here is how we copy the whole `ast.found.refs` object into `ast.all_refs`, which surely comes with a cost that seems unnecessary, given we can use `ast.found.refs` directly instead. But since there are a few consumers, and they are not **exactly** identical (`all_refs` contains import refs too), I'll follow up on that in a later PR. I'm also adding the codecov badge to the README to make it easy to see when our coverage drops. But I'm not as convinced we should fail PRs when coverage isn't 100% as I was before, as it might make for a worse contributor experience. Fixes #918 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
srenatus
pushed a commit
to srenatus/regal
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2024
I started looking into increasing the test coverage the other day, and wow, there really turned out to be some bugs under those stones! While there are a few silly additions here just for coverage, many of the changes made here uncovered issues that when fixed had Regal report many issues in our own code! So this was definitely a worthwhile endevour. Will continue this work for sure, but to avoid it becoming a monster, and to leave it in a good state, I'll follow up with more PRs later. Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
srenatus
pushed a commit
to srenatus/regal
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2024
Like with previous PR aiming to increase our test coverage (StyraInc#1058), doing so this time revealed a few places where code was unused, or could be rewritten to be better optimized, removed, or made easier to read. One find that is yet to be addressed here is how we copy the whole `ast.found.refs` object into `ast.all_refs`, which surely comes with a cost that seems unnecessary, given we can use `ast.found.refs` directly instead. But since there are a few consumers, and they are not **exactly** identical (`all_refs` contains import refs too), I'll follow up on that in a later PR. I'm also adding the codecov badge to the README to make it easy to see when our coverage drops. But I'm not as convinced we should fail PRs when coverage isn't 100% as I was before, as it might make for a worse contributor experience. Fixes StyraInc#918 Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <anders@styra.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I started looking into increasing the test coverage the other day, and wow, there really turned out to be some bugs under those stones!
While there are a few silly additions here just for coverage, many of the changes made here uncovered issues that when fixed had Regal report many issues in our own code! So this was definitely a worthwhile endevour.
Will continue this work for sure, but to avoid it becoming a monster, and to leave it in a good state, I'll follow up with more PRs later.