-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 800
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
Add more test to reach 100% coverage for visibility_single_manager #5832
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted filessee 8 files with indirect coverage changes Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
|
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 018e9d46-51b7-469d-8c5a-6f1158cec0c9Details
💛 - Coveralls |
visibilityManager := NewVisibilityManagerImpl(mockVisibilityStore, log.NewNoop()) | ||
visibilityManagerImpl := visibilityManager.(*visibilityManagerImpl) | ||
|
||
assert.Nil(t, visibilityManagerImpl.toInternalListWorkflowExecutionsRequest(nil)) |
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.
nit: this is already covered by other unit tests targeting public funcs. unless you wanted to cover specific edge cases, you don't need to add a separate test func targeting private funcs.
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.
Yes, I am testing an edge case with an input is nil.
What changed?
Add unit tests to reach 100% coverage for the file
Why?
code coverage week
How did you test it?
unit test
Potential risks
Release notes
Documentation Changes