Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #307 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 1658 1658
Branches 194 194
=========================================
Hits 1658 1658
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
| panel.webview.onDidReceiveMessage( | ||
| async (msg) => { | ||
| switch (msg.command) { | ||
| case "submit": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sonarqube does have a point - why have a switch on a single condition?
| <br><small id="dbPathLabel" style="font-size: 11px; color: #888;"></small> | ||
| </label> | ||
| <label class="vscode-toggle" for="useDefaultDB"> | ||
| <span class="toggle-switch"> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth addressing this finding
| <small id="defaultCFGPath"></small> | ||
| </label> | ||
| <label class="vscode-toggle" for="useDefaultCompiler"> | ||
| <span class="toggle-switch"> |
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // First create new CFG and return path | ||
| const compilerPath = await createNewCFGFromCompiler( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe I am overseeing something, but are we completely duplicating the code for CFG creation that's done in the context of manage already
Zbigor
left a comment
Zbigor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No major issues, but it'd make sense to look at the following:
- Sonar findings, not many and they seem to make sense
- Potential code duplication (we might have a reason why we want to duplicate?)
- Is it possible to add any unit tests for the new logic?
- And/Or some e2e at least
|
2 participants
Adds: