--generateCoverageForFiles #4246

aaronabramov · 2017-08-11T05:59:58Z

aaronabramov · 2017-08-11T06:04:24Z

integration_tests/__tests__/__snapshots__/generate_coverage_for_files.test.js.snap

+Tests:       1 passed, 1 total
+Snapshots:   0 total
+Time:        <<REPLACED>>
+Ran all test suites matching /a.js/i.


this is incorrect (also broken in master for --findRelatedTests)
i filed the issue #4247

thymikee · 2017-08-11T06:11:41Z

integration_tests/__tests__/generate_coverage_for_files.test.js

+  // should only run a.js
+  expect(rest).toMatchSnapshot();
+  // coverage should be collected only for a.js
+  expect(stdout).toMatchSnapshot();


btw, not really needed here, but recently I came up with more descriptive snapshot testing such scenarios:

describe(('--generateCoverageForFiles') => { test('summary', () => expect(summary).toMatchSnapshot()) test('rest', () => expect(rest).toMatchSnapshot()) test('stdout', () => expect(stdout).toMatchSnapshot()) })

This gives more descriptive snapshot names, together with error messages when diffing later (it's easy to loose context in large snapshots, and names are easier to understand than checking which number is for which snap)

wait.. are you running the subprocess outsude of test?
i agree that snapshots are hard to track!

thymikee · 2017-08-11T06:13:47Z

packages/jest-config/src/normalize.js

+  // `--findRelatedTests '/rootDir/file1.js' --coverage --collectCoverageFrom 'file1.js'`
+  // where arguments to `--collectCoverageFrom` should be globs (or relative
+  // paths to the rootDir)
+  if (argv.generateCoverageForFiles) {


Are we good that it's only for CLI?

yeah! i don't think we'd want to put it in a config, since it's a very interactive option :)

aaronabramov · 2017-08-11T06:14:11Z

website build travis and appveyor seems to be failing for unrelated reasons :(

thymikee · 2017-08-11T06:48:53Z

integration_tests/__tests__/generate_coverage_for_files.test.js

+
+test('--generateCoverageForFiles', () => {
+  writeFiles(DIR, {
+    '.watchmanconfig': '',


is this really needed?

i think if you have watchman installed on your computer (which we have at fb) it'll complain in stdout if this file is not present, which will in turn make it harder to snapshot the output :(

maybe it's worth creating a wraper function createJestProject() that'll add it by default.
but at the same time i'd rather keep it explicit

I'm for explicitness here, it's easier not to loose the context

cpojer · 2017-08-11T09:00:34Z

I'm not opposed to adding this option, however I don't think the naming makes sense. It implies that it will collect coverage but does not imply that tests will be run.

How about --findRelatedTests file1 file2 --collectCoverageOnlyForPatterns

The latter argument will turn on collection for all patterns that are passed in to Jest. It'll collect coverage for file1 and file2, but not file3, for example. What do you think?

Also, I'm not sure how this speeds up arc diff at FB – why does the current solution with passing all the files twice not work?

aaronabramov · 2017-08-11T16:19:53Z

--collectCoverageOnlyForPatterns works! my main motivation for this though was the fact that i get asked almost every week the same question: "how do i generate coverage for a.js?" and every time i wish there was a command that says exactly that :) if i start explaining that to generate coverage for a.js you need to run all related tests and running only __tests__/a.test.js is not sufficient, which is very hard to grasp for people who are not very familiar with testing or coverage concepts.
passing files twice works, however it reduces the number of files we can pass (string overflow that we've been running into recently). So that would work right now, but i wouldn't want it for the long term solution

aaronabramov · 2017-08-11T18:39:55Z

maybe something like
--findRelatedTestsAndCollectCoverageFrom

cpojer · 2017-08-14T07:21:43Z

Not generally a fan and. I guess I'm fine calling it --collectCoverageFor <files> which merges findRelatedTests and collectCoverageOnlyFrom. I don't actually like findRelatedTests either, because it doesn't imply that any tests are run.
If you are running into a string overflow now, you'll run into it again in the future, so we'll need another solution for this (stdin etc.).

All of this kind of hints at the cli becoming unwieldy and overly complex :( Do you have any ideas what we could do about that?

michael-ciniawsky · 2017-08-23T04:31:33Z

jest --coverage                   # All 
jest --coverage file.test.js ...  # Only for files/patterns given as arguments

?

aaronabramov · 2017-08-23T16:45:44Z

@michael-ciniawsky we can't do this, because by default jest expect test patterns to be passed in, and we don't collect coverage for test files.
I'll close it for now because i don't have time to look into it, but i'll come back to it later!

michael-ciniawsky · 2017-08-23T17:12:20Z

Ohh sry, I see what you mean 😛, should be e.g jest --coverage srcDir || srcFile.js (--collectCoverageFrom)? The general idea is, instead of introducing a --flag pass arguments whenever possible to avoid "polluting" the CLI Interface.

…Changed` and `--watch` scenarios (#5601) * Jump start using the work from #4246 * checking how it looks without an extra flag * makes more sense to colocate the test here * remove mystery files * remove references to the flag * update docs * add test case for --onlyChanged and --coverage * update snapshot to what it should be * apply collectCoverageFrom patterns after finding tests * Collect possible coverage patterns while searching for tests * improve test results * hi there flow * skip on windows * will the windows build pass this time? * fix test on windows * remove underscore as it's no longer a private api * polymorphing * simplify test * increase test coverage in jest-config/normalize * make the linter happy again * should use argv as it's not a config option * test coverage for run_jest * update snapshots * remove object spread, replaced with Object.assign * add changelog entry

github-actions · 2021-05-13T08:06:48Z

This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.

facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed ✔️ label Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

--generateCoverageForFiles

bb51c6e

aaronabramov force-pushed the generate_coverage_for_files branch from b225d84 to bb51c6e Compare August 11, 2017 06:11

thymikee reviewed Aug 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

thymikee approved these changes Aug 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

aaronabramov closed this Aug 23, 2017

SimenB mentioned this pull request Feb 17, 2018

feature request: --findRelatedTests --coverage collects coverage for given files only #4245

Closed

stipsan mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2018

Generating coverage for files passed in --findRelatedTests, --onlyChanged and --watch scenarios #5601

Merged

github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 13, 2021

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

--generateCoverageForFiles #4246

--generateCoverageForFiles #4246

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017

thymikee Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017

thymikee Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017 •

edited

thymikee Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017 •

edited

thymikee Aug 11, 2017

cpojer commented Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

cpojer commented Aug 14, 2017

michael-ciniawsky commented Aug 23, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 23, 2017

michael-ciniawsky commented Aug 23, 2017 •

edited

github-actions bot commented May 13, 2021

--generateCoverageForFiles #4246

--generateCoverageForFiles #4246

Conversation

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

cpojer commented Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017

cpojer commented Aug 14, 2017

michael-ciniawsky commented Aug 23, 2017

aaronabramov commented Aug 23, 2017

michael-ciniawsky commented Aug 23, 2017 • edited

github-actions bot commented May 13, 2021

aaronabramov commented Aug 11, 2017 •

edited

aaronabramov Aug 11, 2017 •

edited

michael-ciniawsky commented Aug 23, 2017 •

edited