codecov[bot]
commented
2 months ago Codecov Report
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 77.66%. Comparing base (
7f18261) to head (bacf645).
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #216 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 74.98% 77.66% +2.67% ========================================== Files 75 74 -1 Lines 4642 4625 -17 ========================================== + Hits 3481 3592 +111 + Misses 955 836 -119 + Partials 206 197 -9 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/xmidt-org/xmidt-agent/pull/216/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=xmidt-org) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/xmidt-org/xmidt-agent/pull/216/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=xmidt-org) | `77.66% <100.00%> (+2.67%)` | :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=xmidt-org#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.
Originally we wanted the websocket to loop through all possible interfaces in some sort of priority order and then populate whichever one it uses. But paradus doesn't do this. And we don't know enough how to do this and it seems like we would be re-inventing the wheel if RDK / tr181 is already handling this for us. For now, just copy whatever we are told into the metadata header.
note - all my changes are 100 percent unit test covered. codecoverage is complaining about coverage in files I removed code from (?)