-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[FEAT] Detect the Sequential Multi-instance Marker of an Activity #468
[FEAT] Detect the Sequential Multi-instance Marker of an Activity #468
Conversation
777af6d
to
a4a9f4e
Compare
a4a9f4e
to
e34095a
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
minor changes requested in test. Otherwise, looks good
it(`${bpmnKind} with Loop marker`, () => { | ||
const shape = newShape(newShapeBpmnElement(bpmnKind, ShapeBpmnMarkerKind.LOOP), newLabel({ name: 'Arial' })); | ||
expect(computeStyle(shape)).toEqual(`${bpmnKind};bpmn.markers=loop;fontFamily=Arial`); | ||
describe.each([[ShapeBpmnMarkerKind.LOOP], [ShapeBpmnMarkerKind.MULTI_INSTANCE_SEQUENTIAL]])(`compute style - %s marker for ${bpmnKind}`, (markerKind: ShapeBpmnMarkerKind) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
currently, it is run twice with the loop marker instead of once with the loop, once with the multi instance
Otherwise, we can put this specific test out of this block because we may not want to test expand marker + every other marker
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Closes #345
Expected
At commit 777af6d