Conversation
Code Coverage SummaryDiff against mainResults for commit: 6f4e443 Minimum allowed coverage is ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results |
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 16 suites 1m 55s ⏱️ For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit f31b4cb. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance Difference
Results for commit 7e102fe ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
|
I never like snapshot test. Should we take this opportunity to change this test to something else? Maybe just regex if the html expression exist? |
osenan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
God job! Only a minor comment
In this case we are testing the UI. We could just use regex that the labels/options are there but that wouldn't test if the html changed or that we get it. |
donyunardi
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we need to investigate this a bit deeper. It's not clear why it's failing in the first place as I have other PR in this repo that passes R CMD Check using the latest shiny version.
Putting Request Changes so we don't merge accidentally during investigation.
Pull Request
Fixes #341
modal_content, the second commit onR/verbatim_popup.Ris to remove them and simplify a bit the code