Improve docs & codecov for 0.5.0 #56
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files
|
|
@asmello this is ready for you to review whenever you have time. |
|
Hmm, looking at the README, I'm kinda second guessing not using the strategy you linked. |
|
I went ahead and employed the rustdoc hack. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Awesome docs! I'm a bit sleepy but I don't think I would have missed anything major.
I feel like a few tests are too trivial, which is what I feared was going to happen when trying to reach near 100% coverage. But fine, leave them, it's good marketing I guess. :p
| assert_eq!(err.source_offset(), 0); | ||
|
|
||
| let err = Pointer::parse("no-leading/slash").unwrap_err(); | ||
| assert!(err.source().is_none()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure if this should be tested, is adding a source a breaking change? Ditto elsewhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was to get coverage on that branch of source 😅. I don't know if it'd be considered a breaking change but I would assume so?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created an issue for this one too: #57
Yea, my silly ass pursuit of 100 definitely resulted in some obnoxious tests. There were a few tests which I genuinely did not want to write. There were a few, mostly around error outputs, that I let copilot spit out. Yet, I pushed ahead thinking I might actually be able to hit 100 on this lib. As annoying and useless as some of the tests are, one of the tests that I absolutely thought was pointless caught an issue with I'm okay with dumping the useless ones. You've marked a few of them. |
Co-authored-by: André Mello <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: André Mello <[email protected]>
TryFromforIndexFromStrimpl forIndex