-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
chore: Use 'v8' coverage provider #300
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
Conversation
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #300 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.89% 97.39% -0.51%
==========================================
Files 77 87 +10
Lines 1903 11889 +9986
Branches 254 554 +300
==========================================
+ Hits 1863 11579 +9716
- Misses 40 303 +263
- Partials 0 7 +7
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
13a1326 to
8573695
Compare
9a898bf to
174d088
Compare
wschurman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's ignore the barrel files (src/index.ts) files since there's nothing really to test. Otherwise this looks good.
174d088 to
dd7f926
Compare
8573695 to
64057b6
Compare
45e17f6 to
5d61e92
Compare
5d61e92 to
88dc7f5
Compare
Why
I was hoping this would be more accurate and consistent.
Test Plan
Codecov report from CI.
It looks like there are a few small changes here and there, and then the
src/index.tsfiles were all added to coverage and marked as uncovered.