Skip to content

Conversation

marcelofabri
Copy link
Member

  • I've started my branch from the develop branch (gitflow)
    • And I've selected develop as the "base" branch for this Pull Request I'm about to create
  • I've added an entry in the CHANGELOG.md file to explain my changes and credit myself
    (or added #trivial to the PR title if I think it doesn't warrant a mention in the CHANGELOG)
    • Add the entry in the appropriate section (Bug Fix / New Feature / Breaking Change / Internal Change)
    • Add a period and 2 spaces at the end of your short entry description
    • Add links to your GitHub profile to credit yourself and to the related PR and issue after your description

This makes it way easier for me to know that the unit tests are testing the code paths I'm touching

@SwiftGen-Eve
Copy link

Hey 👋 I'm Eve, the friendly bot watching over SwiftGen 🤖

Thanks a lot for your contribution!


Seems like everything is in order 👍 You did a good job here! 🤝

Generated by 🚫 Danger

Copy link
Collaborator

@AliSoftware AliSoftware left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm ok with that change but wondering if that will work as expected, given the nature of our tests?

Especially I'm thinking of the fact that we test different layers:

  • The code of SwiftGenKit itself (classical Unit Tests)
  • The generated contexts, comparing their YAML serialisation with a file on disk serving as baseline
  • The generated text (generally swift code) generated by the built-in templates, comparing the generated output with fixtures on disk too

Will code coverage be relevant enough for the last 2 type of tests? 🤷

In any case I don't see any drawbacks in activating it, so let's merge this; just not sure if the interpretation of the coverage result will always be relevant for all cases is all

@AliSoftware AliSoftware merged commit 01da7f7 into SwiftGen:develop May 27, 2020
@marcelofabri marcelofabri deleted the marcelo/code-coverage branch May 27, 2020 23:59
@djbe djbe added this to the 6.2.0 milestone May 27, 2020
@djbe djbe mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants