Increase test coverage about atomic-layout HOT 7 CLOSED

I was writing tests to cover missing branches and found out that in
src/utils/templates/getAreasList.js

      const propValue = sanitizeTemplateString(props[propName])
      const nextAreas = propValue ? res.areas.concat(propValue) : res.areas

propValue can be never undefined or false because sanitizeTemplateString always returns an array.

So either check for array length or remove this check.
What do you think?

from atomic-layout.

Added unit tests for invariant function: a6bb237

from atomic-layout.

@Vidlec You are completely right!

[].concat(2) // [2]
// is indeed the same as
[].concat([2]) // [2]

Yes, we should remove that check and just concat the received sanitized template string to res.areas.

If you can, you can add that via pull request, that would be massively appreciated! If not, just create a ticket so we don't forget about that.

Also, ❤️ for increasing test coverage.

from atomic-layout.

There is a one last thing to have 100% coverage

if (prefix === 'min') {
      if (includesArea) {
        if (behavesSame || behavesInclusive) {
          nextValue = breakpointB[propName]
        }
      } else {
        if (shouldStretch) {
          nextValue = breakpointB[propName]
        }
      }
    }

That else branch is uncovered. I dont dare writing test for this, because I have no idea how this works 😃

from atomic-layout.

@Vidlec 😄

I think this is mergeBreakpoints function, isn't it?
That fires when you merge a minABC property of the breakpoint and the template declaration doesn't include the current area, and this area must be stretched. I doubt that makes the picture any cleaner for you...

I can explain you in person, just ping me anytime. It's nothing complicated, I promise.

from atomic-layout.

Test coverage has increased to 100% by merging your pull request #47.

Much thanks and welcome to contributors!

from atomic-layout.

@Vidlec Please let me know if we should reopen this issue to have that last branch covered. I have overlooked the comment and have already closed it. Sorry.

from atomic-layout.