-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
coverage: Allow specifying coverage flags via a yaml
file
#1954
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
coverage: Allow specifying coverage flags via a yaml
file
#1954
Conversation
a9044f0
to
eebc68f
Compare
Package publishing
Documentation at https://github.com/dart-lang/ecosystem/wiki/Publishing-automation. |
PR HealthBreaking changes ✔️
Changelog Entry ✔️
Changes to files need to be accounted for in their respective changelogs.
Coverage
|
File | Coverage |
---|---|
pkgs/coverage/bin/collect_coverage.dart | 💔 Not covered |
pkgs/coverage/bin/format_coverage.dart | 💔 5 % ⬇️ 5 % |
pkgs/coverage/bin/test_with_coverage.dart | 💔 Not covered |
pkgs/coverage/lib/src/coverage_options.dart | 💚 95 % |
This check for test coverage is informational (issues shown here will not fail the PR).
This check can be disabled by tagging the PR with skip-coverage-check
.
API leaks ✔️
The following packages contain symbols visible in the public API, but not exported by the library. Export these symbols or remove them from your publicly visible API.
Package | Leaked API symbols |
---|
License Headers ⚠️
// Copyright (c) 2025, the Dart project authors. Please see the AUTHORS file
// for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
// BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
Files |
---|
pkgs/coverage/lib/src/coverage_options.dart |
pkgs/coverage/test/collect_coverage_config_test.dart |
All source files should start with a license header.
Unrelated files missing license headers
Files |
---|
pkgs/bazel_worker/benchmark/benchmark.dart |
pkgs/bazel_worker/example/client.dart |
pkgs/bazel_worker/example/worker.dart |
pkgs/benchmark_harness/integration_test/perf_benchmark_test.dart |
pkgs/boolean_selector/example/example.dart |
pkgs/clock/lib/clock.dart |
pkgs/clock/lib/src/clock.dart |
pkgs/clock/lib/src/default.dart |
pkgs/clock/lib/src/stopwatch.dart |
pkgs/clock/lib/src/utils.dart |
pkgs/clock/test/clock_test.dart |
pkgs/clock/test/default_test.dart |
pkgs/clock/test/stopwatch_test.dart |
pkgs/clock/test/utils.dart |
pkgs/html/example/main.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/dom.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/dom_parsing.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/html_escape.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/parser.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/constants.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/encoding_parser.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/html_input_stream.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/list_proxy.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/query_selector.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/token.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/tokenizer.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/treebuilder.dart |
pkgs/html/lib/src/utils.dart |
pkgs/html/test/dom_test.dart |
pkgs/html/test/parser_feature_test.dart |
pkgs/html/test/parser_test.dart |
pkgs/html/test/query_selector_test.dart |
pkgs/html/test/selectors/level1_baseline_test.dart |
pkgs/html/test/selectors/level1_lib.dart |
pkgs/html/test/selectors/selectors.dart |
pkgs/html/test/support.dart |
pkgs/html/test/tokenizer_test.dart |
pkgs/pubspec_parse/test/git_uri_test.dart |
pkgs/stack_trace/example/example.dart |
pkgs/watcher/test/custom_watcher_factory_test.dart |
pkgs/yaml_edit/example/example.dart |
This check can be disabled by tagging the PR with skip-license-check
.
4580e6b
to
c3cbd55
Compare
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.
Looks like there's some test failures. See if you can reproduce them locally.
https://github.com/dart-lang/tools/actions/runs/12686464325/job/35499098457?pr=1954
Hi @liamappelbe I've implemented the mentioned changes, and all test cases passed successfully locally. I look forward to your review. Thank you! |
…d search for options file
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12868001598Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.
Details
💛 - Coveralls |
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.
Almost there. Just a few more comments.
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.
Implementation looks good. Reviewing the tests now.
There's one more interesting bit of logic that deserves to be better tested: _findOptionsFilePath
. Make _findOptionsFilePath
public for testing, then write a unit test (in a separate test file) that tests all its edge cases. You'll also need to make some more directory structures and yaml files (maybe in a new directory under the test/
directory to keep things simple):
- Typical case: walk up a few directories to find the pubspec.yaml, and find the coverage_options.yaml file next to it
- No config case: walk up a few directories to find the pubspec.yaml, but there's no coverage_options.yaml file
- Edge case: when there's no pubspec.yaml file at all (this is tricky to test because any walk in the test directory is going to find package:coverage's pubspec, so maybe start in
Directory.systemTemp
)
The other issue with testing this function is that it starts in Directory.current
, which is not safe to alter in a test. So you'll need to change the currentDir
variable into an argument, and pass Directory.current
when invoking it from _getOptionsFile
. Then you can pass whatever you need to in the unit tests.
@@ -89,3 +92,123 @@ extension ListTestExtension on List { | |||
}, | |||
); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
CoverageOptions parseArgsCollectCoverage( |
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.
I think it'd be better to just make the _parseArgs
functions in each tool public, and import them in your test. If you copy/paste those functions here, you're not really testing the tools at all, and the tool could go out of sync with the tests when more flags are added/changed.
You could use @visibleForTesting
to document that they're only public for testing purposes.
|
||
final isFileEmpty = fileContents?.isEmpty ?? false; | ||
|
||
// Pass null to fileContents if the file is empty |
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.
Just a question: Why do you need to pass null to fileContents
if the file is empty?
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.
If we pass empty file content to fromConfigFileContents
, it throws a FormatException
. Should we also handle cases where the file is empty but contains only blank spaces?
}); | ||
}); | ||
|
||
test('override yaml values with command line args', () async { |
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.
Test coverage is generally pretty good in this file. The only other case I can see that needs to be tested is the way collect_coverage
and format_coverage
will output to stdout if you pass a literal 'stdout'
to the --out
command line arg. Add a test for that case.
PR Description
Overview
Concerns
parseArgs Handling:
The
parseArgs
function is defined as private, preventing it from being imported into test files. As a workaround, I created a minimal version for testing purposes. I am wondering if there is a more efficient way to handle this.Test Coverage:
I have added test cases to validate the new functionality. I'm unsure if I have organized the tests properly and would appreciate feedback on their coverage and structure.