Repository navigation
Exclude test files from coverage report #53508
Description
What is the problem this feature will solve?
Hey folks! 👋🏼
I know that as by doc it's currently not possible to exclude specific files or directories from the coverage report.
The problem I face right now is that the coverage includes all of the test files.
For instance, if I have the following file:
// index.js
export function sum(val1, val2) {
return val1 + val2;
}and the test:
// index.test.js
import { strictEqual } from "node:assert";
import { it, describe } from "node:test";
import { sum } from "./index.js";
describe("test", () => {
it("should pass", () => {
strictEqual(sum(40, 2), 42);
});
});Once I run node --experimental-test-coverage --test I get:
> test@1.0.0 no
> node --experimental-test-coverage --test
▶ test
✔ should pass (0.155709ms)
▶ test (1.117417ms)
ℹ tests 1
ℹ suites 1
ℹ pass 1
ℹ fail 0
ℹ cancelled 0
ℹ skipped 0
ℹ todo 0
ℹ duration_ms 47.674834
ℹ start of coverage report
ℹ --------------------------------------------------------------
ℹ file | line % | branch % | funcs % | uncovered lines
ℹ --------------------------------------------------------------
ℹ index.js | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
ℹ index.test.js | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
ℹ --------------------------------------------------------------
ℹ all files | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
ℹ --------------------------------------------------------------
ℹ end of coverage reportWhat is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?
Ideally, .test.* should be excluded from the coverage report
What alternatives have you considered?
No response
Activity
avivkeller commentedon Jun 19, 2024
Seems simple enough. The same logic for
--test-skip-patterncan be used.--coverage-exclude-glob ...--coverage-include-glob ...avivkeller commentedon Jun 19, 2024
I'm happy to work on this :-).
avivkeller commentedon Jun 22, 2024
Hey! Sorry for the delay, I've been out-of-town, but I'll begin work on this ASAP.
8 remaining items
Llorx commentedon Nov 1, 2024
@redyetidev Just created a PR with the "default exclude" behaviour: #55633
avivkeller commentedon Nov 1, 2024
@pmarchini IMHO this issue is completed, the PR itself should be the discussion for the other exclusion rules. If you disagree, re-open
pmarchini commentedon Nov 1, 2024
@redyetidev, I reopened the issue since there's a related PR that will resolve this. Even though the PR is the right place for the implementation discussion, I think it might be better to keep this issue open until the PR lands.
I've seen many times in the past where PRs get stuck or are no longer under active development, and I found them through the issues.
What do you think?
avivkeller commentedon Nov 1, 2024
SGTM, thanks for your insight :-)
cjihrig commentedon Dec 17, 2024
Fixed by #56060
cc: @pmarchini