Skip to content

Conversation

@Den1552
Copy link
Contributor

@Den1552 Den1552 commented Jan 23, 2026

Adds the Feature to open up a Source File from the Testing pane by either clicking on the unit or clikcing on a function within the units that also opens up the source file and focuses on where the function starts

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 23, 2026

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (04ab430) to head (c024b57).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #317   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            9         9           
  Lines         1658      1658           
  Branches       194       194           
=========================================
  Hits          1658      1658           
Flag Coverage Δ
Unit 100.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

envData = await getDataForEnvironment(enviroPath);
}

if (envData && envData.unitData) {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you try reducing the nesting here a bit? For example by returning on opposite conditions etc. It's still understandable what's going on, so this is not so critical

throw new Error(`Unit ${unitName} not found in Testing pane`);
}

// Open the source file through the context menu
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine that it's tested like this for now, cause there are multiple instances of stuff being tested like this. But there could be a refactor that'd make it clearer which test is verifying which feature/user flow - a separate one that would address all such instances. Here it'd be clear from the screenshot of the test failure which flow actually failed, so it's fine for now

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