Glorious merge of code coverage and testem configuration

[Tony Atkins]

Hi, Justin.

Could you elaborate on "add a test util for this that we plug into every
test"?

Thanks,


Tony

On 17 January 2018 at 17:31, Justin Obara <obara.justin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks so much Tony et al for adding this. It’s really helpful to be able
> to view the reports and see what are tests are actually covering.
>
> I’ve started using this for my most recent work and noticed that I was
> getting a lower branch coverage than expected. I spoke with Tony about this
> in the channel
> <https://botbot.me/freenode/fluid-work/2018-01-17/?msg=95855860&page=1> today.
> It seems this is because the
>
> var fluid_3_0_0 = fluid_3_0_0 || {};
>
> at the top of most of our files is treated as a branch because of the
> conditional for the default value.
>
> I think we should either add a test util for this that we plug into every
> test, or just instruct the code coverage to ignore it. If we go the ignore
> route, we could follow this method
>
> var fluid_3_0_0 = fluid_3_0_0 || /* istanbul ignore next: the presence of
> the fluid object can be inferred by the test running */ {};
>
>  https://github.com/gotwarlost/istanbul/blob/master/ignoring-code-for-
> coverage.md#ignore-default-assignments
>
> Thanks
> Justin
>
>
> On January 16, 2018 at 11:19:48 AM, Antranig Basman (
> antranig.basman at colorado.edu) wrote:
>
> I'm happy to report the merge of a major and significantly useful pull
> request
> https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/pull/822 from Tony Atkins which
> adds long-awaited and much needed
> code coverage and testem drivers to Infusion. As well as providing
> amalgamated coverage reports derived from
> both our browser and node-based tests, it provides an all-in-one testem
> driver that will execute all such
> tests in all available browsers and node.js.
>
> This will be invaluable to us in CI, and will shortly be a part of the
> automated builds run on each pull
> request. It will be important in future reviews to ensure that new work
> has good coverage, coverage of
> existing work does not degrade, and that we should work steadily to bring
> areas of old implementation up to
> reasonable standards of coverage (e.g. branch coverage of about 90%
> represents a reasonable baseline. For
> example we have interestingly poor coverage of jquery.keyboard-a11y.js via
> automated tests.
>
> The coverage reports are generated automatically by running "npm test" and
> can be accessed in the newly
> generated "reports" directory. Machine-readable summaries of the coverage
> are produced in "coverage".
>
> Let us all join in congratulating ADTKINS on almost a year of steering
> this pull request to a successful
> conclusion. Similar work is in progress for GPII projects but looks like
> it will be blocked by moving those
> projects over to a "monorepo" structure.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antranig
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list - fluid-work at lists.idrc.ocad.ca
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
> see https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20180117/9d5493c6/attachment.htm>