Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

UIBULKED-353: Update Electronic access - URI #406

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 14, 2023
Merged

Conversation

UladzislauKutarkin
Copy link
Contributor

UIBULKED-353

Purpose

Approach

TODOS and Open Questions

Learning

Pre-Merge Checklist

Before merging this PR, please go through the following list and take appropriate actions.

  • I've added appropriate record to the CHANGELOG.md
  • Does this PR meet or exceed the expected quality standards?
    • Code coverage on new code is 80% or greater
    • Duplications on new code is 3% or less
    • There are no major code smells or security issues
  • Does this introduce breaking changes?
    • If any API-related changes - okapi interfaces and permissions are reviewed/changed correspondingly
    • There are no breaking changes in this PR.

If there are breaking changes, please STOP and consider the following:

  • What other modules will these changes impact?
  • Do JIRAs exist to update the impacted modules?
    • If not, please create them
    • Do they contain the appropriate level of detail? Which endpoints/schemas changed, etc.
    • Do they have all they appropriate links to blocked/related issues?
  • Are the JIRAs under active development?
    • If not, contact the project's PO and make sure they're aware of the urgency.
  • Do PRs exist for these changes?
    • If so, have they been approved?

Ideally all of the PRs involved in breaking changes would be merged in the same day to avoid breaking the folio-testing environment. Communication is paramount if that is to be achieved, especially as the number of intermodule and inter-team dependencies increase.

While it's helpful for reviewers to help identify potential problems, ensuring that it's safe to merge is ultimately the responsibility of the PR assignee.

@UladzislauKutarkin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Screen.Recording.2023-11-08.at.10.47.04.mov

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 8, 2023

Jest Unit Test Statistics

    1 files  ±0    25 suites  ±0   2m 4s ⏱️ +32s
162 tests +1  161 ✔️ +1  1 💤 ±0  0 ±0 
165 runs  +1  164 ✔️ +1  1 💤 ±0  0 ±0 

Results for commit ccd23a8. ± Comparison against base commit 237f2a1.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 8, 2023

BigTest Unit Test Statistics

0 tests  ±0   0 ✔️ ±0   0s ⏱️ ±0s
0 suites ±0   0 💤 ±0 
0 files   ±0   0 ±0 

Results for commit ccd23a8. ± Comparison against base commit 237f2a1.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@UladzislauKutarkin UladzislauKutarkin requested review from vashjs and a team November 8, 2023 06:52
Copy link

@Terala-Priyanka Terala-Priyanka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you improve the code coverage?

@@ -537,6 +537,37 @@ describe('ContentUpdatesForm helpers', () => {
);
});

it('returns the correct object for the URI option', () => {
expect(JSON.stringify(getDefaultActions(OPTIONS.URI, [], formatMessage))).toEqual(

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

toEqual already performs deep equality, so there's no need for JSON.stringify
image

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I know, but we use JSON stringify here because we need to check the string. Without it, our main function returns a slightly different string, with the same content, but the test is not passing. You can take a look at all tests in helpers.js, we are using the same approach.

@UladzislauKutarkin
Copy link
Contributor Author

Could you improve the code coverage?

Here I can't do more, because I cant test control component staff.

Copy link

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.    Quality Gate failed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

75.0% 75.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

idea Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension sonarlint SonarLint

@UladzislauKutarkin UladzislauKutarkin merged commit d9c9d1c into master Nov 14, 2023
5 of 6 checks passed
@UladzislauKutarkin UladzislauKutarkin deleted the UIBULKED-353 branch November 14, 2023 07:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants