fix(coverage): Exclude build/ #29
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Coverage is broken without this, and I haven't been able to find another way of fixing it. Going to merge, but still open to other ideas. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently
yarn coveragereports a large block of uncovered files inbuild/andnode_modules/. As far as I can tell, this happens because tests execute thebuild/files, and use sourcemaps to assign coverage back to the source files. We bundle some source files fromnode_modules/(to be removed in #28 soon), and so certain files fromnode_modules/@deck.gl/...also end up in our coverage report.Based on the configuration options listed at https://vitest.dev/guide/coverage, I would have thought
--coverage.exclude buildwould be the way to fix this, but it seems to apply the exclusion before resolving sourcemaps, and so no coverage is reported with that option. The best working option I've been able to find is--coverage.all falsewhich simply does not report files with no coverage. All of the "real" source files have >0 coverage (excluding types-only files, which contain no runtime code), so this does not hide any source files from the report, but in theory it could.