codecov[bot]
commented
1 month ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 85.76%. Comparing base (
181b8da) to head (7a268f2). Report is 32 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #1388 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 85.71% 85.76% +0.04% ========================================== Files 522 525 +3 Lines 25582 25710 +128 Branches 6966 6998 +32 ========================================== + Hits 21927 22049 +122 - Misses 3380 3506 +126 + Partials 275 155 -120 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1388/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/1388/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `72.71% <90.47%> (+0.17%)` | :arrow_up: | | [jest](https://app.codecov.io/gh/concord-consortium/codap/pull/1388/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=concord-consortium) | `53.48% <100.00%> (-0.08%)` | :arrow_down: | 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 v3 with a spotty/nonexistent internet connection recently it became apparent that we weren't handling errors that occurred when loading the default plugins configuration using
fetchcorrectly. This came to our attention recently as a source of flaky cypress tests as well. My first approach was a fairly small change to thePluginsButtoncode to improve handling offetcherrors. This wasn't easy to write a jest test for, however, so I split out the fetching code to a newuseStandardPlugins()custom hook and wrote a jest test for that. To test various possiblefetchresponses I installedjest-fetch-mock(also used by CLUE). Then for good measure, I wrote a jest test for thePluginsButtoncomponent as well.