-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 356
test(table): improve table unit tests #601
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
test(table): improve table unit tests #601
Conversation
|
Hi @aymanbagabas, nice to see some activity here. I welcome any questions or change requests you may have :) |
Could you please look into the tests and why they're failing? |
|
@aymanbagabas the tests are failing intentionally. I was tasked with creating tests to validate the correct output. Known bugs are currently making the tests fail. Please see the PR description for more details. |
|
cc/ @bashbunni I think you also fiddling with table, not sure if you aware of this PR |
andreynering
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you for contributing, this looks very solid! 🚀
I added skips to two tests that were failing for now because we need the CI to pass. We can un-skip them once the issues gets fixed.
I'll merge this now and then merge this work into the v2-exp branch.
From now on, please open any new PRs targeting v2-exp. Probably a good idea to wait for #772 to be merged first, though.
chore: merge `master` with #601 into `v2-exp`
|
This work was merged on |
|
Thanks for your patience with this one @Broderick-Westrope! |
This PR seeks to add unit tests for the
tablecomponent as requested in #593. The hope is that the table bubble will be as thoroughly tested as the lipgloss table.Tests have been added to address these issues:
Tests written specifically for issues will be failing until the issue is fixed (in a separate PR). Other tests have also been added to improve the general coverage (ie. not in relation to any known issue).
I welcome questions relating to this PR. I think this is a great platform for clarifying the expected/desired behaviour of the table component.