Skip to content

Added fuel efficiency unit #703

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Sep 13, 2019
Merged

Conversation

aidbal
Copy link
Contributor

@aidbal aidbal commented Sep 12, 2019

No description provided.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Sep 12, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #703 into master will decrease coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 45.6%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #703      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   58.34%   58.24%   -0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         165      166       +1     
  Lines       37450    37757     +307     
==========================================
+ Hits        21852    21992     +140     
- Misses      15598    15765     +167
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
UnitsNet/GeneratedCode/UnitAbbreviationsCache.g.cs 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
UnitsNet/GeneratedCode/UnitConverter.g.cs 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
...tsNet/GeneratedCode/Quantities/FuelEfficiency.g.cs 43.72% <43.72%> (ø)
UnitsNet/GeneratedCode/Quantity.g.cs 81.49% <80%> (-0.02%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1103295...0894e4d. Read the comment docs.

@aidbal
Copy link
Contributor Author

aidbal commented Sep 12, 2019

@angularsen Hey, any suggestions on how to improve coverage on auto generated tests? Shall we lower the bar?

@angularsen
Copy link
Owner

Hi @aidbal, the codecov thing is quite new and I sure didn't add the new demands for 58.34% coverage so that must be something it's figured out on its own :-) You can disregard this. Test coverage is not your concern for the generated code part at least, but if you had added any custom code then tests should be added for that. I don't see any in this PR, so don't mind this for now.

I'll try to get to reviewing this soon.

Copy link
Owner

@angularsen angularsen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few minor things, the rest looks good!

@angularsen
Copy link
Owner

As for coverage, I think what you are seeing is that generated code for a new quantity is lower than the code coverage of the entire codebase. So when adding a new quantity, it automatically reduces the overall coverage percentage. I've started some small steps in improving coverage by moving test cases to the code generator so that we can properly test N quantities and M units instead of a handful picked ones. Things should improve then.

@angularsen angularsen merged commit cf97710 into angularsen:master Sep 13, 2019
@angularsen
Copy link
Owner

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.

3 participants