Ari Perkkiö comments

Results 391 comments of


                                            Ari Perkkiö

fix(coverage): istanbul provider to work with JSDOM and `process.env` usage

#3957 looks a lot more reliable than this one. I'll convert this into `test(coverage): JSDOM + process.env usage` later.

fix(coverage): istanbul provider to work with JSDOM and `process.env` usage

Browser tests are still failing with `SyntaxError: Unexpected identifier 'test'`

fix(coverage): istanbul provider to work with JSDOM and `process.env` usage

> `process.env.NODE_ENV` should be transformed there Yes, it is transformed and it breaks the inline source maps where `process.env.NODE_ENV` is used inside a string. Any ideas how this should be...

fix(coverage): istanbul provider to work with JSDOM and `process.env` usage

Yep, let's close this old PR. No one has reported issues with JSDOM so far.

Detect hanging async operations

This will be possible after https://github.com/vitest-dev/vitest/pull/8705

Simplify `coverage.exclude` patterns, remove `coverage.all`

> ### Alternative > Alternatively we could do similar option as Jest has: https://jestjs.io/docs/configuration#collectcoveragefrom-array > > Their option forces users to define `coverage.include`, as by default they have `coverage.all: false`....

fix(coverage): remove work-around for implicit `else`

Updating `istanbul-lib-source-maps` breaks other coverage tests 🤔

fix(coverage): remove work-around for implicit `else`

Another upstream fix set up in https://github.com/istanbuljs/istanbuljs/pull/789

Wrong coverage when using isolate: false

Does this happen when setup files are not importing source files?

Wrong coverage when using isolate: false

Thanks for checking. It helps us debugging when we can narrow down the required conditions to "`setupFiles` + `isolate: false`" only.