codecov[bot]
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 91.66667% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 85.73%. Comparing base (
08b3e9b) to head (430e488). Report is 10 commits behind head on main.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| v3/src/utilities/date-parser.ts | 91.66% | 1 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1367 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 85.70% 85.73% +0.03% ========================================== Files 521 521 Lines 25057 25068 +11 Branches 6800 6813 +13 ========================================== + Hits 21474 21492 +18 + Misses 3310 3304 -6 + Partials 273 272 -1 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1367/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [cypress](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1367/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `72.91% <91.66%> (+0.04%)` | :arrow_up: | | [jest](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1367/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `53.34% <91.66%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
cypress[bot]
While testing some edge cases, I've noticed that the existing V2 parser doesn't work well with years that have three digits. Since I rely on parseDate more than on V2, I wanted to fix that. Rather than modifying the existing regexp patterns, I've set things up in a way that allows us to gradually move to other date parsers in the future. Currently, I'm using the built-in Date.parse, but it's easy to replace it with something else.