codecov[bot]
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 85.72%. Comparing base (
f5d06d0) to head (8133866). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| ...nts/graph/models/graph-data-configuration-model.ts | 94.73% | 1 Missing :warning: |
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1380 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 85.63% 85.72% +0.09% ========================================== Files 522 522 Lines 25582 25584 +2 Branches 6534 6967 +433 ========================================== + Hits 21906 21933 +27 + Misses 3522 3376 -146 - Partials 154 275 +121 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1380/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/1380/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `72.57% <70.00%> (+0.12%)` | :arrow_up: | | [jest](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1380/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `53.56% <95.45%> (+<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]
[PT-187833677]
The crash occurred on undoing the drop of a second (or more) Y attribute because
GraphDataConfigurationModel.filterCasecan get called for the "missing" attribute and crashed when it encountered anundefinedattribute description. Fixing that was straightforward, but revealed an underlying issue that the undo/redo of adding an additional y attribute still didn't work. The fix there was to add a MobX reaction to synchronize thefilteredCasesarray with the attribute configuration. This meant that some bespoke code to manage that synchronization in response to particular events could be eliminated. The new reaction also relies on makingfilteredCasesa MobX shallow-observable array so that additions/removals to/from it can trigger the necessary reaction(s).