You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, we have some modules implementing their own coverage scripts, but they don't have a standardized way to do it, like an HTML report. The idea of this issue is to discuss if we should add a coverage script for testing or not.
Desired behavior:
Better reports and a standardized way to run JS unit tests' coverage
Current behavior:
We have terminal reports like this one:
but when opening the detailed view using the generated HTML page, this content is shown:
... and we can't click inside these links to get better reports about branches/lines covered
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Issue type (mark with
x
)Description
Currently, we have some modules implementing their own coverage scripts, but they don't have a standardized way to do it, like an HTML report. The idea of this issue is to discuss if we should add a coverage script for testing or not.
Desired behavior:
Better reports and a standardized way to run JS unit tests' coverage
Current behavior:
We have terminal reports like this one:
but when opening the detailed view using the generated HTML page, this content is shown:
... and we can't click inside these links to get better reports about branches/lines covered
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: