Conversation
|
Looks good, but I think we should find a way to publish the reports. Could we maybe integrate travis ci and nyc? Or, maybe it's better to use a tool such as code climate instead so it can easily be published? |
edi9999
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How much does this slow down the tests ?
Can you measure time before / after ?
If it slows down significantly, I would suggest to create a special command in package.json for this (npm test-coverage for example)
Yeah, I think making a special command is the right way to go, as one wouldn't need to create code coverage reports each time one runs the tests, right? |
|
@edi9999 @epicfaace I ran some tests locally and saw, on average, a time increase of ~5s. Whilst this is not a huge increase it is proportionally significant when you consider that the average test run without coverage is only 10s. I'll add a separate command for running the coverage report. |
Change-type: patch Signed-off-by: Lucian <lucian.buzzo@gmail.com>
f2dedd8 to
e02c055
Compare
|
Looks good; let's do that. |
Change-type: patch
Signed-off-by: Lucian lucian.buzzo@gmail.com
Reasons for making this change
Having code coverage reports is useful for detecting uncovered code paths.
Checklist
npm run cs-formaton my branch to conform my code to prettier coding style