#234 Upgrade Vitest libraries to latest version #235
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ import { defineConfig, UserConfig } from "vitest/config"; | |||
| export default defineConfig({ | |||
| plugins: [react()], | |||
| test: { | |||
| exclude: ["e2e/**"], | |||
| exclude: ["e2e/**", "node_modules/**"], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noticed that the vitest command runs tests in node_modules if any exist, that's why I'm excluding this folder here.
| "@testing-library/react": "^16.0.0", | ||
| "@types/node": "^20", | ||
| "@types/ramda": "^0.30.1", | ||
| "@types/react": "^18.3.3", | ||
| "@types/react-dom": "^18.3.0", | ||
| "@vitejs/plugin-react": "^4.1.0", | ||
| "@vitest/coverage-v8": "0.34.2", | ||
| "@vitest/coverage-v8": "^2.0.5", | ||
| "@vitest/ui": "^2.0.5", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added this package so that we can use the Vitest UI if we want with the yarn test:ui script.
| @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ describe("connectionForm", () => { | |||
| ).toBeInTheDocument(); | |||
|
|
|||
| expect(screen.getByTestId("icon-test-inactive")).toBeInTheDocument(); | |||
| expect(screen.getByText("Save")).toBeInTheDocument(); | |||
| expect(screen.getByTestId("connection-save")).toBeInTheDocument(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More tests started failing after the latest rebase. Probably something in @testing-library/* or @mantine/* changed in a patch version, but I haven't dug into this further.
|
Hi, @brunomenezes , I checked the issue with the reduced test coverage. From the looks of it, we are covering the same files with the inclusion of For those files the reporter is giving a 100% coverage though, so they are not bringing down the coverage. Between this branch and the Here's a screenshot:
The only difference I noticed was that the individual imports are not marked with
So, it appears that the reporter is giving different results for the same file contents. I also tried a different reporter - @vitest/coverage-istanbul but with it, the coverage fell even more - https://coveralls.io/builds/69600513. Additionally, I checked vitest's repo for any related issues. I found this one and applied the suggested solution with So, I think we can either ignore the failed coveralls check for this PR and merge it like this with this new test coverage result or I can add more unit tests to prevent the decrease of test coverage. |
@nevendyulgerov, that is alright. As we discussed, they changed a bit about how mapping works. That becomes the new threshold, and we will work from here. |
I upgraded Vitest related packages to their latest versions and applied a couple of fixes for issues I noticed after the upgrade.