Fix: Coverages for React

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.

[sbenemerito]

Hello to the maintainers of this repo 👋
(@shivani-sharechat@sachan-sharechat@sanjeevyadavIT)

I know this library has been marked as deprecated, but recently, I was tasked to write a report for how 'documented' our React app was, and I resorted to using this tool as I thought it was most fit for our use-case.

I'm making this pull request to hopefully resolve the following issues for getting coverage for React:

Component's name being a required definition in prop types

For example, we have a simple Component defined as:

import PropTypes from 'prop-types';
import React from 'react';
interface Props {
active: boolean;
testProp: string;
}
const MyTestProp = (props: Props) => {
const { active, testProp } = props;
return (
<span>Hello</span>
);
};
MyTestProp.propTypes = {
active: PropTypes.bool.isRequired,
testProp: PropTypes.string.isRequired,
};
export default MyTestProp;

doc-coverage apparently says MyTestProp is missing from the defined propTypes. I'm not sure we want to define an unnecessary prop type with the component's name everytime, so I thought we should remove it instead.

Please let me know if my understanding is wrong in any way 🙇

Components with no props are not being considered "covered"

When a component has no props (say the same component as above, except it's defined as something like const MyTestProp = (props: Props)), doc-coverage will say that it has 0% coverage, and is not included in the count for componentsWithStoriesOrPropTypes.