Description
thoughts on this PR? Should we investigate code coverage on the unit tests for these types of detailed scenarios to make sure we've got all cases exercised? I don't think we have a nice code-coverage thing setup as part of the Toolkit anywhere, eh?
@michael-hawker Regarding this, as a side note, I saw that ReSharper includes a Unit Test Coverage tool that's quite easy to use. It's not perfect (eg. it sometimes skips a line, and it doesn't seem to deal with compiler directives properly, but AFAIK code coverage tool are known not to be 100% accurate), but it should be nice to at least have a point of reference to check locally until we eventually setup some CI tool for this as well, as you mentioned. Here's what I'm getting right now on master
:
I can definitely make a PR to improve the coverage even more 😊
As a path forward, I was thinking something like:
- Use this Test Coverage tool individually on the new added features to ensure the new APIs being added are properly covered
- Use this on
master
and make a separate PR to fill in the missing tests for the already existing APIs
How does this sound? Just not sure when to make the various PRs to minimize conflicts, assuming that's a concern.
As in, should we maybe merge at least #3351 before branching off from master
again for this new PR? 🤔
Let me know what you think!
Originally posted by @Sergio0694 in #3380 (comment)