Skip to content

100% test coverage #396

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2025
Merged

100% test coverage #396

merged 2 commits into from
Aug 19, 2025

Conversation

blakeembrey
Copy link
Member

Fixing up 100% test coverage cases, additionally shifting some bytes around for readability and size (mainly the .map to a for loop to make the recursive case more obvious).

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 7, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (4a91505) to head (3246bc9).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #396      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   99.17%   100.00%   +0.82%     
===========================================
  Files           1         1              
  Lines         364       379      +15     
  Branches      130       136       +6     
===========================================
+ Hits          361       379      +18     
+ Misses          3         0       -3     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

let value = "";
let i = 0;

function name(value: string) {
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pulled name function out (which adds bytes) because it's needed to avoid a crash on name being missing before the token type error.

@blakeembrey
Copy link
Member Author

CleanShot 2025-08-07 at 15 21 19@2x

@blakeembrey blakeembrey requested a review from a team August 18, 2025 17:11
@jonchurch jonchurch self-requested a review August 18, 2025 17:58
@jonchurch
Copy link
Member

Requested myself so I can find it again if I dont get to it after the tc meeting

Base automatically changed from be/debug-original-path to master August 18, 2025 18:02
@blakeembrey blakeembrey merged commit 265a2a7 into master Aug 19, 2025
8 checks passed
@blakeembrey blakeembrey deleted the be/100-code-cov branch August 19, 2025 00:02
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.

4 participants