Add tests for NetworkButton component #138
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The specific test files used for snapshots only have been integrated in each component's test file so that all tests, including the snapshot are located in a single test file. Also as more tests were added, it seems like a better idea to have test data in a separate file on its own rather than import test data from another test file. FInally, with all these changes, Jest wanted to have snapshots taken again thus why the snapshot files were updated too.
|
When adding tests for |
|
@davidlag0, thanks a lot for your work! |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request type
Please check the type of change your PR introduces:
This is another PR to keep adding tests to the codebase, for the frontend specifically.
What is the current behavior?
Codebase has no tests. This is meant to improve the situation and ease future code changes.
Issue Number: #135
What is the new behavior?
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Other information