Skip to content

fix(conditionSet): ensure correct output is emitted from evaluateCurr… #8106

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ermahesh
Copy link

@ermahesh ermahesh commented Jun 28, 2025

…entCondition

Fixes #8067 by aligning test expectations and emitted condition output with the evaluated condition result.

Closes

Describe your changes:

All Submissions:

  • Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
  • Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same update/change?
  • Is this a notable change that will require a special callout in the release notes? For example, will this break compatibility with existing APIs or projects that consume these plugins?

Author Checklist

  • Changes address original issue?
  • Tests included and/or updated with changes?
  • Has this been smoke tested?
  • Have you associated this PR with a type: label? Note: this is not necessarily the same as the original issue.
  • Have you associated a milestone with this PR? Note: leave blank if unsure.
  • Testing instructions included in associated issue OR is this a dependency/testcase change?

Reviewer Checklist

  • Changes appear to address issue?
  • Reviewer has tested changes by following the provided instructions?
  • Changes appear not to be breaking changes?
  • Appropriate automated tests included?
  • Code style and in-line documentation are appropriate?

…entCondition

Fixes nasa#8067 by aligning test expectations and emitted condition output with the evaluated condition result.
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 28, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 42.99%. Comparing base (f4637b8) to head (b33b85f).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (f4637b8) and HEAD (b33b85f). Click for more details.

HEAD has 38 uploads less than BASE
Flag BASE (f4637b8) HEAD (b33b85f)
unit 30 0
e2e-ci 8 0
Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8106       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   57.76%   42.99%   -14.78%     
===========================================
  Files         684      442      -242     
  Lines       27560    13751    -13809     
  Branches     2701        0     -2701     
===========================================
- Hits        15920     5912    -10008     
+ Misses      11306     7839     -3467     
+ Partials      334        0      -334     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
e2e-ci ?
e2e-full 42.99% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from f4637b8
unit ?

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
src/plugins/condition/Condition.js 0.00% <ø> (-80.17%) ⬇️
src/plugins/condition/ConditionManager.js 0.00% <ø> (-87.57%) ⬇️

... and 541 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f4637b8...b33b85f. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

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.

Condition sets may show the wrong output when editing
1 participant