Closed cristobalgvera closed 2 months ago
Does this PR follow the [Contribution Guidelines](development guidelines)? Following is a partial checklist:
Proper conventional commit scoping:
If you are adding a new plugin, the scope would be the name of the category it is being added into. ex. feat(utility): added noice.nvim plugin
If you are modifying a pre-existing plugin or pack, the scope would be the name of the plugin folder. ex. fix(noice-nvim): fix LSP handler error
[x] Pull request title has the appropriate conventional commit type and scope where the scope is the name of the pre-existing directory in the project as described above
[x] README
is properly formatted and uses fenced in links with <url>
unless they are inside a [title](url)
[x] Entry returns a single plugin spec with the new plugin as the only top level spec (not applicable for recipes or packs).
[x] Proper usage of opts
table rather than setting things up with the config
function.
[x] Proper usage of specs
table for all specs that are not dependencies of a given plugin (not applicable for recipes or packs).
Ah now I see the other usage of test_prefix. My bad. 2s
📑 Description
Add mappings to
nvim-coverage
.Also, it was added the option to reload the coverage report if it changes, a useful option complemented with the ease to show the coverage added with the mappings.
ℹ Additional Information
The mapping was added as a second layer behind
Tests
map. This is becauseneotest
andvim-test
use the<Leader>T
map and name it like that, allowing to complement the usage of those plugins without depending on it.