feat(coverage): add code coverage reporting #56
Conversation
lkipke
added
enhancement
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| reporterStream.end(); | ||
|
|
||
| if (coverageEnabled) { | ||
| coverage.report(coverageReporters); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This might cause issues for users who provide --reporter tap, --reporter json, or --reporter json-stream, since it causes stdout to contain both TAP (and TAP-in-JSON) and coverage output. I don't mind that behavior for roca — especially for our initial pass — but I'm curious how something like mocha handles that!
The biggest practical impact is that running roca --coverage-reporters=html > coverage-report.html won't produce a valid HTML file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm interesting. A couple of thoughts: if you didn't want TAP output to pollute coverage output, you could do --reporter silent (i agree that's an interim solution, not long term). But also, running --coverage-reporters=html actually generates a coverage/ folder in the project root, and the coverage report is written to coverage/index.html. So I don't know that there's necessarily a use case where you would need to pipe stdout to an html file! Of course, you may want to pipe other output formats, such as --coverage-reporters=text, which would still be an issue.
But yeah, i think this should work for a first pass.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But also, running --coverage-reporters=html actually generates a coverage/ folder in the project root, and the coverage report is written to coverage/index.html.
Heh I actually didn't know it produced a separate coverage/ directory. --coverage-reporters=text is exactly the use-case I was thinking of 🙂
Change Summary
This allows for code coverage reporting. It gets coverage data using the
brsAPI from sjbarag/brs#525, and generates the reports using IstanbulJS.