-
I’m new to the entire concept of capturing JS coverage.
The way I intend to use Istanbul is to check how many lines of my JS code is being hit by my tests running in a browser, thus using code cover…
-
### Describe the bug
When a test imports a react component which throw an error, the stack trace will be incorrect with istanbul coverage. Traces are wrong (but different) in both browser and jsdom m…
-
I am currently working on building up a suite of gulp tasks and a gulpfile that are all implemented using typescript. For this, I use the compiler option ``"noImplicitAny": true``.
Using that optio…
-
- `kcd-scripts` version: 11.2.0
- `node` version: any
- `npm` (or `yarn`) version: any
Relevant code or config
https://github.com/testing-library/user-event/pull/706/files#diff-79de2fcdb58def5…
-
Selam Oğuz,
İnternette front end adına oluşturduğunuz topluluklara İzmirde ikamet etmem nedeniyle katılamadığım için kıskanıyorum :) Böyle güzel etkinlikler keşke İzmirde de olsa..
Topluluğunuz…
-
Hello,
I'm currently using v8-to-istanbul to convert chromium headless coverage output via puppeteer to a format that can be consumed by https://github.com/SitePen/remap-istanbul.
Thanks for you…
-
Utilizing the options.includes for multiple folder/files does not work as expect.
usage
`includes:['./folder/name','./folder2/name']`
although these folders can be included individually and coverage…
-
### Describe the bug
If you use istanbul coverage (required for browser mode), override the coverage `excludes`, and use `vi.hoisted`, then your test runs fail with cryptic syntax errors.
This wor…
-
Would it be possible to add istanbul.js to generate code coverage for unit tests?
-
## Link to bug demonstration repository
## Expected Behavior
Branch Coverage to be giving more accurate value
## Observed Behavior
Branch Coverage seems to be wrong from our end
### Trouble…