Skip to content
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

add unit tests for reference input transform #366

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

hborawski
Copy link
Contributor

@hborawski hborawski commented May 23, 2024

  • Added basic transform tests for input transform

Change Type (required)

Indicate the type of change your pull request is:

  • patch
  • minor
  • major

Does your PR have any documentation updates?

  • Updated docs
  • No Update needed
  • Unable to update docs

Copy link

codecov bot commented May 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.91%. Comparing base (e6cc765) to head (66362c3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on bazel-6.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           bazel-6     #366      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    91.81%   91.91%   +0.09%     
===========================================
  Files          339      339              
  Lines        27009    27009              
  Branches      1954     1957       +3     
===========================================
+ Hits         24799    24824      +25     
+ Misses        2197     2172      -25     
  Partials        13       13              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@hborawski hborawski marked this pull request as ready for review June 14, 2024 21:32
@hborawski hborawski requested a review from adierkens as a code owner June 14, 2024 21:32
@hborawski hborawski requested a review from mrigankmg June 14, 2024 21:48
new CommonTypesPlugin(),
]);

expect(current?.validation).not.toBeUndefined();
Copy link
Contributor

@mrigankmg mrigankmg Jun 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need this if we are already testing for the validation object toHaveProperty("severity", "error"); on line 106?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it just makes the test more easily identifiable if it fails, this will fail for the object not being defined, instead of saying it cant find a property

@mrigankmg
Copy link
Contributor

mrigankmg commented Jun 18, 2024

Should we also test for existence and functionality of the format and set methods added on transform?

@sugarmanz sugarmanz deleted the branch bazel-6 July 19, 2024 18:05
@sugarmanz sugarmanz closed this Jul 19, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants