That’s fair, but I think that’s a separate discussion. The OP has a specific technical question around how code coverage works with these modules, let’s leave debate on code coverage as a metric for another thread.
benwilson512
Author of Craft GraphQL APIs in Elixir with Absinthe
dimitarvp
Well, that could be interesting to find out, i.e. how to make sure generated modules are tested more comprehensively.
@i-n-g-m-a-r Maybe dumping the generated code – after macro expansion – in a separate file and inspecting it is a good first step.
0
i-n-g-m-a-r
Thanks for your suggestion Dimitar.
In my cases I will think “it’s me” like in pebcac.
Most of the time I’m right over the target.
With regard to testing and macro’s I don’t seem to be the problem.
0
i-n-g-m-a-r
I copied all of the files here:
into my test directory.
It doesn’t do anything to improve coverage.
0
i-n-g-m-a-r
Check this out.
test "view coverage" do
views = [
MyappWeb.Layouts,
MyappWeb.ThingHTML,
MyappWeb.StuffHTML,
MyappWeb.MoreStuffHTML,
MyappWeb.PageHTML
]
Enum.each views, fn view ->
assert :ok == apply(view, :__phoenix_verify_routes__, [nil])
end
end
100.00% | MyappWeb.Layouts
100.00% | MyappWeb.ThingHTML
100.00% | MyappWeb.StuffHTML
100.00% | MyappWeb.MoreStuffHTML
100.00% | MyappWeb.PageHTML
1
sodapopcan
As @benwilson512 said, it’s odd that in a vanilla project that Layouts and PageHTML are not being covered as the generated PageControllerTest is definitely exercising these.
In terms of CoreComponents, you will start to see coverage through your controller and live views test as you start using them. Of course, just adding a <.button>hello</.button> to PageControllerTest will increase the coverage without asserting anything about it, so I take coverage with a grain of salt.
1