GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GeezerVison is showing github.com — fix(junit): count generated test cases by neallin917 · Pull Request #457 · cpplint/cpplint Conversation
|
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughJUnit XML reporting now counts failures by distinct filename. Unit test expectations, sample output, and the changelog reflect the corrected grouped testcase counts. ChangesJUnit reporting
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer us grouping testcases by error category, but this is better than before so I'll approve this after a few minor changes.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rechecked at b4371d2.
The narrowed change matches the review direction: failures is unique files with findings, changelog wording updated, and num_errors left as the raw error-message count. With only lint findings, tests/failures now match the emitted <testcase> count (e.g. 3 findings in 2 files → failures=2, tests=2, two testcases). Unit test testJUnitXML passes; full suite 206 passed.
LGTM.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed at b4371d2.
This fixes #431's reported mismatch: lint findings are serialized as one failing testcase per file, and failures plus tests now use that same grouping. The unchanged process-error path is outside #431's lint-finding scope.
Verified locally:
python -m pytest -q --no-cov
231 passed
git diff --check b4371d2^..b4371d2
Passed
LGTM.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed current head b4371d2 against #431.
For the reported lint-finding path, FormatJUnitXML() emits one testcase/failure per affected file, and the unique-filename count makes both failures and tests match that emitted structure. The sample and unit expectation now reflect the same grouping.
This resolves the reported 123-findings / 2-files mismatch. LGTM.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed at b4371d21885b2dc2e4d6e07ca3fbcff8eb718ed6.
I reproduced #431 and verified the grouping behavior independently. Multiple lint findings for the same file are emitted as one failing <testcase>, so counting distinct filenames makes the suite-level failures and tests attributes match the generated testcase structure. The 3-findings/2-files case produces failures="2" tests="2", and the silly JUnit sample correctly reduces the 123 findings across 2 files to 2 failing testcases.
I also checked repeated/non-contiguous findings, mixed error/failure output, and the empty-success case. I found no regression introduced by this change.
Validation:
testJUnitXML: passedsilly-junit CLI sample: passedgit diff --check: passedLGTM.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
I prepared an optional merge with the current Only Validation on the merged version: 241 tests passed, 96.66% coverage; configured Pylint, Mypy, and applicable pre-commit hooks passed. Prepared with AI assistance. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
JUnit support doesn't count amount of tests correctly
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.