tests done #237
tests done #237
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## mrc-6023 #237 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 97.67% 99.78% +2.10%
============================================
Files 189 188 -1
Lines 4563 4560 -3
Branches 1005 1006 +1
============================================
+ Hits 4457 4550 +93
+ Misses 98 9 -89
+ Partials 8 1 -7 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
config-static/README.md
Outdated
| 1. Gets the Javascript code for the ODE and discrete runners and saves them into `stores/runnerOde.js` and `stores/runnerDiscrete.js` (the runner are generic and shared across all stores) | ||
| 1. For each `<store-name>`, it saves the config into `stores/<store-name>/config.json` and it compiles the model code and saves the response into `stores/<store-name>/model.json`. | ||
|
|
||
| We also build `wodin` frontend in static mode (just normal `wodin` frontend with an early return in the api service so we don't do any network requests) and copy the js and css files into the output folder. After this, we just commit the output folder into a github pages branch and github will deploy it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth saying here why we need to do early returns from the api service, and why it's benign that we do..?
Will the github pages bit be part of the main wodin build gha? It's implied here. We could make it an optional setting to do this - that would make things really easy for the user, but won't always be wanted if not using ghp.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can add why we return early from the api service but i didnt want to write benign because i am not 100% it will always be benign, it is currently benign though...
so github pages just looks at a branch in your github repo with our normal setup, all we do in the action is push the html and js files to that branch. it is already optional because the user can just not hook up that branch to github pages, but this shall be explained in the README in the example repo!
| return fs.mkdtempSync(tmpdir); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export const tmpdirTest = test.extend<TmpDirTestFixture>({ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is neat! I've just been using memfs to fake the fs, but this is actually nicer because it cleans up after itself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep its quite cool! want another excuse to use stuff like this more
| expectPath(tmpdir); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| tmpdirTest("works as expected", async ({ tmpdir }) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, classic test name 😆
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yess, i shall try and improve it!
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Emma Russell <[email protected]>
havent change any functionality, just moved code around to different files to help make it easier to test!
we have talked through the functionality, the files we discussed in person were these ones so can just look at the tests in this PR and the comments I added, no need to focus on the javascript as much