chore: add script to collect coverage with atomics support to speed up…

[rogaldh]

Description

Add script to collect coverage

Type of change

• Other (please describe): add coverage script

Related Issues

Relates to #494

Checklist

• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• I have added tests that prove my fix/feature works
• All tests pass locally and in CI
• I have updated documentation as needed
• CI/CD checks pass
• I have included screenshots for protocol screens (if applicable)
• For security-related features, I have included links to related information

---

Important

Add script and configuration for test coverage collection with atomic support using Vitest.

• Scripts:
  • Add coverage script in package.json to run vitest --coverage.enabled.
• Dependencies:
  • Add @vitest/coverage-v8 and jsdom to devDependencies in package.json.
• Configuration:
  • Update vite.config.ts to enable atomic support in poolOptions.threads.useAtomics for tests.

^{This description was created by for b4347bb. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

@rogaldh is attempting to deploy a commit to the Solana Foundation Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to b4347bb in 2 minutes and 45 seconds

More details

• Looked at 43 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. vite.config.ts:35

• Draft comment:
  Ensure 'poolOptions.threads.useAtomics' is supported by your Vitest version. If so, consider adding a comment describing its impact.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 50% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure compatibility with a specific version of a tool, which is not allowed. However, it also suggests adding a comment to describe the impact, which could be useful. The first part of the comment violates the rules, but the second part is a valid suggestion.

2. package.json:12

• Draft comment:
  The CLI flag '--coverage.enabled' looks unusual. Consider using '--coverage' (e.g. 'vitest run --coverage') to trigger coverage collection.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. package.json:93

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that '@vitest/coverage-v8@3.0.8' is fully compatible with the installed Vitest (^3.0.8).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to dependency compatibility, which is not allowed according to the rules. It asks the author to ensure compatibility, which is similar to asking them to double-check something.

4. package.json:97

• Draft comment:
  Verify that 'jsdom@^26.0.0' is the intended version and works well with the testing environment (e.g. 'jest-environment-jsdom' at 29.5.0).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify compatibility between a specific version of a library and the testing environment. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to ensure compatibility or verify intentions, which is not allowed.

5. vite.config.ts:35

• Draft comment:
  Consider adding a comment explaining why 'poolOptions' with 'threads.useAtomics: true' is enabled, as it improves performance but may require fallback handling on unsupported systems.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment suggests adding an explanation for a specific configuration choice, which is not allowed by the rules. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or ask for a test to be written. It also doesn't point out a potential issue or ask for confirmation of an intentional change. Therefore, it should be removed.

6. package.json:12

• Draft comment:
  It appears there's a typographical error in the new 'coverage' script. The command is written as 'vitest --coverage.enabled', but typically the coverage flag should be '--coverage'. Please review if this is intentional or a mistake.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is suggesting a change that would actually break the coverage command. Vitest's coverage configuration uses dot notation, and --coverage.enabled is the correct syntax. This is especially clear since they've also added the @vitest/coverage-v8 package as a dependency, showing this was an intentional setup.
  Could there be multiple valid ways to enable coverage in Vitest? Maybe the simpler --coverage flag also works?
  Even if --coverage might work, the current syntax is definitely valid and intentionally specific. We shouldn't suggest changing working, correct code.
  The comment should be deleted because it's suggesting to change correct, working code to a different syntax without any benefit.

Workflow ID: wflow_xht2mRmIXcPTSfwn

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.