Skip to content

[NoQA] Coverage: Fixed Template / Upstream Main / Baseline#67706

Merged
blimpich merged 1 commit intoExpensify:mainfrom
ikevin127:ikevin127-coverageUpdates
Aug 4, 2025
Merged

[NoQA] Coverage: Fixed Template / Upstream Main / Baseline#67706
blimpich merged 1 commit intoExpensify:mainfrom
ikevin127:ikevin127-coverageUpdates

Conversation

@ikevin127
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Explanation of Change

🎯 All Critical Fixes Are In Place:

1. checkCoverageChanges.sh

• ✅ Hardcoded upstream to Expensify/App
• ✅ Improved shallow repository handling
• ✅ Fallback diff range logic

2. generateBaselineCoverage.sh

• ✅ Fixed syntax: git checkout upstream/main -- .
• ✅ Uses upstream instead of origin
• ✅ Preserves changed_files.txt with backup/restore
• ✅ Fetches from correct baseline repo

3. waitForJestTests.ts

• ✅ Unified PR number extraction
• ✅ Single API call for accurate headSha
• ✅ All SHA comparisons use headSha consistently

4. postTestCoverageComment.ts

• ✅ Improved file path matching logic
• ✅ Fixed baseline 0 comparison logic
• ✅ Includes files with 0% coverage
• ✅ Excludes type-only files appropriately

5. ✅ postTestCoverageComment.ts - Template Rendering

• ✅ Fixed table row rendering: Added newline after each table row
• ✅ Proper markdown formatting: Each file displays on separate row
• ✅ Multi-file display: Shows all changed files with coverage data

🚀 Expected Workflow Behavior:

For Both Internal + Fork PRs:

  1. Correct Baseline: Always compares against Expensify/App main
  2. Accurate Coverage: Shows all changed functional files
  3. Reliable Waiting: Waits for correct test runs using proper SHA
  4. Comprehensive Reporting: Displays meaningful coverage differences

The workflow should now:
• ✅ Work consistently for internal Expensify PRs
• ✅ Work correctly for fork PRs
• ✅ Show multiple files in coverage details
• ✅ Provide accurate baseline comparisons
• ✅ Handle edge cases gracefully

cc @blimpich

Fixed Issues

$
PROPOSAL:

Tests

N/A

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

Offline tests

N/A

QA Steps

N/A

  • Verify that no errors appear in the JS console

PR Author Checklist

  • I linked the correct issue in the ### Fixed Issues section above
  • I wrote clear testing steps that cover the changes made in this PR
    • I added steps for local testing in the Tests section
    • I added steps for the expected offline behavior in the Offline steps section
    • I added steps for Staging and/or Production testing in the QA steps section
    • I added steps to cover failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
    • I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
    • I tested this PR with a High Traffic account against the staging or production API to ensure there are no regressions (e.g. long loading states that impact usability).
  • I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
  • I ran the tests on all platforms & verified they passed on:
    • Android: Native
    • Android: mWeb Chrome
    • iOS: Native
    • iOS: mWeb Safari
    • MacOS: Chrome / Safari
    • MacOS: Desktop
  • I verified there are no console errors (if there's a console error not related to the PR, report it or open an issue for it to be fixed)
  • I verified there are no new alerts related to the canBeMissing param for useOnyx
  • I followed proper code patterns (see Reviewing the code)
    • I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e. toggleReport and not onIconClick)
    • I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
    • I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
    • I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to src/languages/* files and using the translation method
      • If any non-english text was added/modified, I used JaimeGPT to get English > Spanish translation. I then posted it in #expensify-open-source and it was approved by an internal Expensify engineer. Link to Slack message:
    • I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
    • I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
    • I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
    • I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in STYLE.md) were followed
  • If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
  • I followed the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
  • I tested other components that can be impacted by my changes (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like Avatar, I verified the components using Avatar are working as expected)
  • I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
  • I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.ts or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
  • I verified that if a function's arguments changed that all usages have also been updated correctly
  • If any new file was added I verified that:
    • The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
  • If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
    • A similar style doesn't already exist
    • The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e. StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))
  • If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
  • If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like Avatar is modified, I verified that Avatar is working as expected in all cases)
  • If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
  • If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
  • If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
    • I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
    • I added Design label and/or tagged @Expensify/design so the design team can review the changes.
  • If a new page is added, I verified it's using the ScrollView component to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.
  • I added unit tests for any new feature or bug fix in this PR to help automatically prevent regressions in this user flow.
  • If the main branch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to the Test steps.

Screenshots/Videos

Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop

@ikevin127 ikevin127 requested a review from a team as a code owner August 2, 2025 00:53
@melvin-bot melvin-bot Bot requested review from JS00001 and removed request for a team August 2, 2025 00:53
@melvin-bot
Copy link
Copy Markdown

melvin-bot Bot commented Aug 2, 2025

@JS00001 Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button]

@ikevin127
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@JS00001 Please ignore this, we're working on coverage testing - Ben will review / merge this.

@blimpich blimpich requested review from blimpich and removed request for JS00001 August 4, 2025 01:49
@blimpich blimpich merged commit 55fbd88 into Expensify:main Aug 4, 2025
18 of 19 checks passed
@OSBotify
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OSBotify commented Aug 4, 2025

✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Aug 4, 2025

🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/blimpich in version: 9.1.89-1 🚀

platform result
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 success ✅

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

github-actions Bot commented Aug 6, 2025

🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/jasperhuangg in version: 9.1.89-21 🚀

platform result
🖥 desktop 🖥 success ✅
🕸 web 🕸 success ✅
🤖 android 🤖 success ✅
🍎 iOS 🍎 failure ❌

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.

3 participants