Skip to content

fix(clients): generate jest.config.js instead of extending from global config #2163

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

Closed
wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

trivikr
Copy link
Member

@trivikr trivikr commented Mar 22, 2021

Issue

Refs: #1618

Description

Generate jest.config.js per client instead of extending from global config

Testing

CI


By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Copy link
Contributor

@alexforsyth alexforsyth left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

lgtm

@trivikr
Copy link
Member Author

trivikr commented Mar 24, 2021

The failing S3.spec.ts was written as a jest test to start with in #1097
It was moved to karma when browser integration tests were added in #1296

As part of this PR, the unit test will be moved to use jest and ts-jest.

@trivikr trivikr force-pushed the clients-jest-config branch from 5edcd8d to 67293a9 Compare March 24, 2021 00:40
@trivikr trivikr force-pushed the clients-jest-config branch from 48ce3c9 to 1150c2b Compare March 24, 2021 01:09
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Mar 24, 2021

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@5d9bc5f). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

❗ Current head 6084f83 differs from pull request most recent head afa6594. Consider uploading reports for the commit afa6594 to get more accurate results
Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2163   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   48.48%           
=======================================
  Files           ?      551           
  Lines           ?    34135           
  Branches        ?     8446           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    16552           
  Misses          ?    17583           
  Partials        ?        0           

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 5d9bc5f...afa6594. Read the comment docs.

@aws-sdk-js-automation
Copy link

AWS CodeBuild CI Report

  • CodeBuild project: sdk-staging-test
  • Commit ID: 79cc9e2
  • Result: FAILED
  • Build Logs (available for 30 days)

Powered by github-codebuild-logs, available on the AWS Serverless Application Repository

@trivikr
Copy link
Member Author

trivikr commented Mar 24, 2021

The test failing on CI is successful in local workspace.
The PR which introduced the test which is failing #1455

trivikr added a commit to trivikr/aws-sdk-js-v3 that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2021
mocha is used for testing in client-s3 aws#1455
The CI is failing when we try to use jest aws#2163
@trivikr
Copy link
Member Author

trivikr commented Mar 24, 2021

Superceded by #2172 because of issues with replacing mocha with jest in client-s3.

@trivikr trivikr closed this Mar 24, 2021
trivikr added a commit to trivikr/aws-sdk-js-v3 that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2021
mocha is used for testing in client-s3 aws#1455
The CI is failing when we try to use jest aws#2163
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Apr 8, 2021

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs and link to relevant comments in this thread.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 8, 2021
@trivikr trivikr deleted the clients-jest-config branch June 1, 2021 22:28
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants