fix(coverage): get close to 100% test coverage #67
Conversation
rules/no-disabled-tests.js
Outdated
| @@ -1,19 +1,16 @@ | |||
| 'use strict'; | |||
|
|
|||
| function getName(node) { | |||
| function joinNames(a, b) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@borilla mind sharing why you added the check? None of the tests hit this path, so I just inlined it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just defensive coding, but I can come up with a theoretical example using an anonymous object:
({ f: function () {} }).f()
rules/no-disabled-tests.js
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /* istanbul ignore next */ | ||
| return null; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this just to be future proof?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is for any unmatched node-types (ie those we can't find names for), eg
(a || b).f(); // callee.object here is LogicalExpression
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great, thanks! Added those 2 examples, and coverage hit 100% 🙂
rules/no-focused-tests.js
Outdated
| @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ module.exports = { | |||
| create: context => ({ | |||
| CallExpression(node) { | |||
| const callee = node.callee; | |||
| /* istanbul ignore if */ | |||
| if (!callee) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jkimbo this is an old one, can you provide details on the cases where a CallExpression has no callee?
rules/valid-expect-in-promise.js
Outdated
| @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ const isExpectCallPresentInFunction = body => { | |||
| return body.body.find(line => { | |||
| if (line.type === 'ExpressionStatement') | |||
| return isExpectCall(line.expression); | |||
| /* istanbul ignore else */ | |||
| if (line.type === 'ReturnStatement') return isExpectCall(line.argument); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tushardhole can you provide some sample code where this condition is false?
|
@xfumihiro Do you think we could add some tests covering the uncovered parts of |
SimenB
changed the title
SimenB
force-pushed
the
coverage
branch
7 times, most recently
from
90a7104
to
d56a0ed
Compare
SimenB
changed the title
|
I'm gonna merge as is, and open up a separate issue for 100% |
It would be great if we could get to 100% coverage, especially as we're so close!
Missing a couple of branches in utils.js, but I've also added a couple of ignores I would like to drop. Help appreciated!
Missing coverage:
