Unit tests for nullable-etag (#442)#454
Merged
Merged
Conversation
a5e33ae to
f4569c7
Compare
f4569c7 to
c35f0e1
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #454 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 82.88% 82.92% +0.03%
- Complexity 930 931 +1
============================================
Files 79 79
Lines 2717 2717
Branches 269 269
============================================
+ Hits 2252 2253 +1
Misses 331 331
+ Partials 134 133 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
mukundansundar
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can you add a unit test for getState?
Contributor
Author
getState() was unchanged, and is exercised in other tests? See: |
mukundansundar
approved these changes
Jan 25, 2021
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Adding unit tests for nullable-etag. Will commit after #452 is merged. Looks like #452 covered all the functionality correctly, no additional changes were necessary to make the tests pass.
Issue reference
We strive to have all PR being opened based on an issue, where the problem or feature have been discussed prior to implementation.
Please reference the issue this PR will close: #442
Checklist
Please make sure you've completed the relevant tasks for this PR, out of the following list: