Skip to content
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

Better support, and also document, use with IPM #28

Open
isc-tleavitt opened this issue Jan 9, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Better support, and also document, use with IPM #28

isc-tleavitt opened this issue Jan 9, 2024 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Collaborator

When used in an IPM context we should automatically determine which classes to cover (without requiring coverage.list). Documentation in this GitHub repo should cover how to enable that as well as incorporate relevant content from https://community.intersystems.com/post/unit-tests-and-test-coverage-intersystems-package-manager .

It's possible that passing the IPM context to the unit test manager could require an IPM change - likely just adding a line to pass the package name as a user param. Could also be achieved through a custom lifecycle class within this package (which we'd want to exclude).

Probably makes sense to hold this until after the IPM rename is done.

@isc-tleavitt isc-tleavitt added enhancement New feature or request documentation labels Jan 9, 2024
@isc-tleavitt isc-tleavitt self-assigned this Jan 9, 2024
@isc-tleavitt
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This should also include conventions around unit test resource directories given the issue with coverage.list described here: intersystems/ipm#389

isc-tleavitt added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 1, 2024
Fixes #43
Fixes #20

Partially addresses #28 by adding doc on how to run via IPM - there's still more we could do to make the support more automatic but that'll be left as a future enhancement.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant