Mocked credentials for testing purposes

[jpoo90]

Closes #149

• Added a mock for the credentials module.
• Removed hardcoded credentials from bootstrap.spec.jsx

[thescientist13]

@jpoo90
There is a mock credentials class in test/mocks, would that be sufficient rather than making the new file?
https://github.com/thescientist13/github-dashboard/blob/master/test/mocks/user-credentials.json

[jpoo90]

@thescientist13 I don't think so. In the bootstrap.tsx we need to mock the module itself. https://github.com/thescientist13/github-dashboard/blob/master/src/components/bootstrap/bootstrap.tsx#L29

test/mocks has a json with the credentials. In that case, we would need to mock the module, import the user-credentials.json and then return the json from the module mock.

Maybe I'm missing something from the mocking structure you have in place. But I think it's easier to mock the module itself and re-use when necessary.

[thescientist13]

@jpoo90
I see what you mean.

So could we move credentials.ts to test/mocks? Maybe user-credentials.json should be deprecated then? (depending on its usage in the app)

[jpoo90]

@thescientist13

We can't move the mock to test/mocks. There as an open discussion in Jest's repo about it. I agree that we can depreacte user-credentials.json and use the mock module instead.

If you are OK with having the __mock__ folder, I can replace use it to replace user-credentials.json

[thescientist13]

We can't move the mock to test/mocks. There as an open discussion in Jest's repo about it.

Well, I guess that settles that then.

If you are OK with having the mock folder, I can replace use it to replace user-credentials.json

Sounds like a plan! 👍

[thescientist13]

ok to test

[thescientist13]

Looks like Cobertura is unhappy for the new code without coverage credentials.ts? I think adding it may have caused the overall coverage to do down, unless it can be ignored somehow?
http://www.thegreenhouse.io:8080/job/CI-github-dashboard/145/console

18:43:35 Cobertura coverage report found.
18:43:35 Code coverage enforcement failed for the following metrics:
18:43:35     Methods's stability is 83.33 and set mininum stability is 87.5.
18:43:35     Lines's stability is 89.49 and set mininum stability is 93.09.
18:43:35 Setting Build to unstable.

[thescientist13]

SOOOOOOOO close

19:46:08 Code coverage enforcement failed for the following metrics:
19:46:08     Methods's stability is 86.46 and set mininum stability is 87.5.
19:46:08     Lines's stability is 92.49 and set mininum stability is 93.09.

[jpoo90]

@thescientist13

I can't find why the coverage dropped. This is the difference between master and this branch.

Master:

PR:

Do you have any recommendations ? I don't see how the updated mock affected the interface coverage 😒

[thescientist13]

ok to test

[thescientist13]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[thescientist13]

ok to test

[thescientist13]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[thescientist13]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[thescientist13]

@jpoo90
i fine tuned the metric targets for Cobertura to set thresholds instead of auto update. Not sure why but looks good to me.

fyi: merge conflict

[jpoo90]

@thescientist13 Solved merge conflicts

[thescientist13]

👍