fix(coverage): Exclude Source Generator from coverage requirements #25
Conversation
Source generators only run at compile-time, not runtime, so they don't get code coverage during tests. Excluding the 15 source generator files from coverage requirements to get accurate runtime coverage metrics. This focuses coverage on the runtime library code (src/CsvHandler) which is what actually executes during tests and should resolve the low coverage issue (< 40% vs 80% target).
Removed FluentAssertions dependency and replaced ~213 assertions across 6 test files with standard xUnit assertions: - WriterTests.cs (~24 assertions) - ParserTests.cs (~80 assertions) - ReaderTests.cs (~14 assertions) - PolyfillTests.cs (~30 assertions) - AotCompatibilityTests.cs (~15 assertions) - IntegrationTests.cs (~50 assertions) Changes: - Replaced .Should().BeTrue/False() with Assert.True/False() - Replaced .Should().Be(x) with Assert.Equal(x, actual) - Replaced .Should().NotBeNull() with Assert.NotNull() - Replaced comparison assertions with Assert.True(condition) - Removed FluentAssertions package reference from csproj Benefits: - Reduced test dependencies - Simpler, more standard assertion style - Smaller package footprint
Resolved conflict by keeping FluentAssertions removed (already replaced with xUnit assertions in previous commit).
![github-advanced-security[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/57789?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
| // Just verify the check doesn't throw (hardware dependent) | ||
| (isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false).Should().BeTrue(); | ||
| Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false); |
Check notice
Code scanning / CodeQL
Unnecessarily complex Boolean expression Note test
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI 7 days ago
The best way to fix this problem is to rewrite the assertion so that it is not needlessly complex. The original assertion is always true for Boolean values. If the intention is to verify that accessing the hardware acceleration status does not throw, no assertion is strictly necessary; the test will fail if an exception occurs. If an assertion is still desired, it can check that isAccelerated is a Boolean (which is always true in this context), or simply assert something more meaningful (e.g., Assert.True(isAccelerated == isAccelerated) or just Assert.True(true)). For demonstration and keeping the assertion, simplifying to Assert.True(true); is the least intrusive change.
Edit line 254 in tests/CsvHandler.Tests/PolyfillTests.cs:
- Replace
Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false);withAssert.True(true);.
No imports or new method definitions are required.
| @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| // Just verify the check doesn't throw (hardware dependent) | ||
| Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false); | ||
| Assert.True(true); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #endregion |
|
|
||
| // Just verify the check doesn't throw (hardware dependent) | ||
| (isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false).Should().BeTrue(); | ||
| Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false); |
Check notice
Code scanning / CodeQL
Unnecessarily complex Boolean expression Note test
Show autofix suggestion
Hide autofix suggestion
Copilot Autofix
AI 7 days ago
To fix this problem, rewrite the unnecessarily complex Boolean comparison isAccelerated == false to use the simpler, idiomatic equivalent !isAccelerated. Specifically, in tests/CsvHandler.Tests/PolyfillTests.cs, on line 254, change:
Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false);to:
Assert.True(isAccelerated || !isAccelerated);No additional imports, method definitions, or variable definitions are required.
| @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ | ||
| #endif | ||
|
|
||
| // Just verify the check doesn't throw (hardware dependent) | ||
| Assert.True(isAccelerated == true || isAccelerated == false); | ||
| Assert.True(isAccelerated || !isAccelerated); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #endregion |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. ❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (24.07%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #25 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 24.07% 24.07%
=======================================
Files 29 29
Lines 1458 1458
Branches 287 287
=======================================
Hits 351 351
Misses 1065 1065
Partials 42 42 Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Summary
Excludes the Source Generator project from Codecov coverage calculations to fix artificially low coverage reporting.
Problem
src/CsvHandler.SourceGenerator/don't get runtime coverageSolution
Updated
codecov.yml:src/CsvHandler.SourceGenerator/**/*to ignore listsrc/CsvHandler/)Impact
This should bring coverage metrics back to realistic levels, measuring only code that can actually be tested at runtime.
Related
Fixes coverage issues blocking PRs #21, #22, #23