Skip to content
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

Fix 1065 to improve code coverage for with_opt.R to 100% (#1066) #1080

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 8, 2023

Conversation

VincentGuyader
Copy link
Member

  • tests: add tests to increase test coverage
  • change filename: testthat style suggets naming "tests/test-with_opt.R" to test functions in a file named "R/with_opt.R"
  • improve tests for maintenance mode to see whether it works with setting options in a fresh golem
  • add tests for "SHINY_PORT"

Refs: #1065

  • tests: add tests to further increase coverage

Add a test for get_golem_options() function which was untested before.

  • tests: test with_golem_options() with print=TRUE
  • formatting with grk
  • update comments to explain the test
  • update the SHINY_PORT test to actually test the behaviour properly
  • add a new test to check whether print=TRUE works inside with_golem_options()

* tests: add tests to increase test coverage

- change filename: testthat style suggets naming "tests/test-with_opt.R" to test functions in a file named "R/with_opt.R"
- improve tests for maintenance mode to see whether it works with setting options in a fresh golem
- add tests for "SHINY_PORT"

Refs: #1065

* tests: add tests to further increase coverage

Add a test for get_golem_options() function which was untested before.

* tests: test with_golem_options() with print=TRUE

- formatting with grk
- update comments to explain the test
- update the SHINY_PORT test to actually test the behaviour properly
- add a new test to check whether print=TRUE works inside with_golem_options()
@VincentGuyader VincentGuyader merged commit d17e0d5 into dev Aug 8, 2023
4 of 5 checks passed
@ColinFay ColinFay deleted the dev_1065 branch February 28, 2024 17:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants