codecov[bot]
commented
1 week ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 456 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 29.04%. Comparing base (
9fc89aa) to head (98aa46e). Report is 41 commits behind head on main.:exclamation: Current head 98aa46e differs from pull request most recent head dd7013c
Please upload reports for the commit dd7013c to get more accurate results.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #9766 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 29.12% 29.04% -0.08% ========================================== Files 2531 2540 +9 Lines 73713 73865 +152 Branches 13753 13734 -19 ========================================== - Hits 21468 21456 -12 - Misses 50629 50831 +202 + Partials 1616 1578 -38 ```:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
github-actions[bot]
Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – 
quexten
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-7084
📔 Objective
This PR refactors the two-factor component to: Use shared component logic and templates Break up components into per-authenthication-method components
The idea is to never have the orchestrator component deal with auth-method specific logic, but to delegate this to components specifically for the auth method. Further, we do not want to introduce platform-specific components that duplicate logic or templates if we can avoid it.
DO NOT REVIEW THIS PR
The review will be done in a set of smaller PR's since this is quite a complex changeset, untangling the (currently) overcomplex two-factor component. This PR will be merged, after review and QA is done on the individual PR's.
9767 - Shared two-fa options component
9768 - Shared two-fa orchestrator component & totp authenticator component
9769 - Shared two-fa yubikey component
9770 - Shared two-fa email component
9771 - Shared two-fa webauthn component
9772 - Shared two-fa duo component
📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:) or similar for great changes:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info:question:) for questions:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:) for suggestions / improvements:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes