fix: [FC-0070] fixing broken tests - #1493
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, @PKulkoRaccoonGang! What's next?Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review: 🔘 Get product approvalIf you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.
🔘 Provide contextTo help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:
🔘 Get a green buildIf one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green. 🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:Who will review my changes?This repository is currently maintained by Where can I find more information?If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:
When can I expect my changes to be merged?Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible. However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:
💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR. |
87ad49b to
f562963
Compare
f562963 to
86a9ef4
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1493 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.28% 93.01% -0.28%
==========================================
Files 1052 1048 -4
Lines 20503 20480 -23
Branches 4385 4330 -55
==========================================
- Hits 19126 19049 -77
- Misses 1317 1363 +46
- Partials 60 68 +8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
bradenmacdonald
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey guys, we had a simpler fix ready here: f43310a - what do you think?
Also, this PR has introduced several incorrect calls to initializeStore(). Can you please revert those?
| beforeEach(() => { | ||
| beforeEach(async () => { | ||
| const mocks = initializeMocks(); | ||
| store = initializeStore(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should not call initializeStore() after calling initializeMocks(); because initializeMocks is already initializing the store. Instead you can use const { reduxStore, ...mocks } = initializeMocks(); and then reduxStore is the store variable.
|
FYI @navinkarkera @pomegranited ^ |
|
@bradenmacdonald Yes, based on this example I will refactor the tests related to getting getWaffleFlags. Thanks! |
Co-authored-by: abdullahwaheed <42172960+abdullahwaheed@users.noreply.github.com>
Description
Fixing tests for library-authoring.
Supporting information
After the latest changes in the repository we have some tests related to the library functionality failing. This PR provides fixes for these tests.