coveralls
commented
5 years ago Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 396
- 13 of 19 (68.42%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
- 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
- Overall coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 79.054%
| Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lib/login.js | 4 | 5 | 80.0% | ||
| lib/requester.js | 0 | 5 | 0.0% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 13 | 19 | 68.42% | --> |
| Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lib/requester.js | 1 | 60.56% | ||
| <!-- | Total: | 1 | --> |
| Totals | |
|---|---|
| Change from base Build 394: | -0.1% |
| Covered Lines: | 249 |
| Relevant Lines: | 307 |
My own testing shows this is marginally better.
I am not sure how the code before worked with refresh since it was testing on e.status and strings were being returned or on objects the in the HTTP response field was statusCode, not status.
Feel free to try out and see what you get. This can be a huge time waste though.
There also seems to be a lot of opportunity to DRY code, but alas I didn't have the patience for that either.