codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.
Comparison is base (
cb33ae5) 97.75% compared to head (7f3b550) 97.76%.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #388 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 97.75% 97.76% ======================================= Files 77 77 Lines 6375 6384 +9 ======================================= + Hits 6232 6241 +9 Misses 143 143 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `97.76% <100.00%> (+<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=openedx#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/388?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [lti\_consumer/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/388?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#diff-bHRpX2NvbnN1bWVyL19faW5pdF9fLnB5) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [lti\_consumer/lti\_1p3/consumer.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/388?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#diff-bHRpX2NvbnN1bWVyL2x0aV8xcDMvY29uc3VtZXIucHk=) | `97.44% <100.00%> (+0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [lti\_consumer/lti\_1p3/tests/test\_consumer.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/388?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#diff-bHRpX2NvbnN1bWVyL2x0aV8xcDMvdGVzdHMvdGVzdF9jb25zdW1lci5weQ==) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | |:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
Allows a basic LtiResourceLinkRequest launch to be performed by the proctoring consumer class. Since it's the parent class this made sense to me versus initializing a different consumer type based on the launch message. Which, would also be hard to implement anyway.