-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
fix: bring back compute coverage options #22
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request include modifications to the testing workflow, updates to the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant CI
participant Builder
participant TestOptions
User->>CI: Trigger workflow
CI->>Builder: Run tests
Builder->>TestOptions: Check computeCoverage
alt computeCoverage is true
Builder->>TestOptions: Collect coverage data
else computeCoverage is false
Builder->>TestOptions: Skip coverage data
end
CI->>User: Return test results
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (7)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (7)
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
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.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (2)
test/test.spec.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-24
: Consider optimizing test timeouts and adding edge cases.While the implementation is correct, consider:
- Reducing the timeout from 100000000ms (~27.7 hours) to a more reasonable value like 30000ms (30 seconds)
- Adding test cases for edge cases:
- Invalid computeCoverage values
- Error scenarios
README.md (1)
126-126
: Consider enhancing the documentationWhile the addition is correct, consider adding the same detailed description as in the type definition to help users understand the purpose of this option.
- computeCoverage?: boolean + // Collect coverage information for later use with the various `move coverage` subcommands + computeCoverage?: boolean
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.github/workflows/test.yml
(1 hunks).gitignore
(1 hunks)README.md
(1 hunks)package.json
(1 hunks)src/builder.ts
(1 hunks)src/types/options.ts
(1 hunks)test/test.spec.ts
(1 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- .gitignore
🔇 Additional comments (4)
test/test.spec.ts (2)
14-18
: LGTM! Test case properly implements computeCoverage option.
The test case correctly implements the computeCoverage option alongside other test options, followed by appropriate cleanup.
20-23
: LGTM! Good test coverage for default options.
The test case provides good coverage for the default scenario without options.
package.json (1)
32-32
: Verify the test configuration approach.
The current setup ignores test.spec.ts
in the main test command but tries to run it separately in the workflow. This might lead to:
- Missed test executions if the separate command fails
- Confusion for developers running tests locally
Consider either:
- Including the file in the main test run and removing the separate workflow step
- Moving the file to a separate integration test directory if it requires special handling
✅ Verification successful
The test configuration is correctly set up
The current setup is actually valid because:
test.spec.ts
is an integration test file that tests the Move package builder with long-running operations (100M ms timeout)- Other test files (
build.spec.ts
,create.spec.ts
,script.spec.ts
) are unit tests that should run faster - Jest configuration in
jest.config.js
is properly set up to recognize all tests in thetest
directory
The separation of the long-running integration test from the main test suite is a good practice to:
- Keep the main test suite fast for developers
- Allow CI/CD to run integration tests separately with appropriate timeouts
- Prevent timeouts in environments with stricter limits
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if there are other test files that might be affected
fd -e ts -e js --full-path '.*test.*' --exclude 'node_modules'
# Check if there are any other Jest configurations that might be affected
fd -e json -e js -e yaml --full-path '.*jest.*' --exclude 'node_modules'
Length of output: 227
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the content of jest.config.js for any specific test patterns or configurations
cat jest.config.js
# Check the content of test.spec.ts to understand its purpose
cat test/test.spec.ts
# Check the GitHub workflow file that runs the tests separately
fd -e yml -e yaml --full-path '.*workflow.*' --exclude 'node_modules' --exec cat {}
Length of output: 977
src/types/options.ts (1)
99-103
: LGTM! Well-documented type addition
The new computeCoverage
option is properly typed as an optional boolean and includes clear documentation explaining its purpose for collecting coverage information.
…tia-labs/builder.js into fix/compute-coverage" This reverts commit 881ab0c, reversing changes made to ed8a17b.
83fceab
to
57bd89c
Compare
Fix
Test
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
computeCoverage
option in the testing configuration, allowing users to specify whether to compute coverage during tests.Bug Fixes
Documentation
README.md
to reflect the newcomputeCoverage
property in theTestOptions
interface.Chores
.gitignore
to exclude generated files from version control.