chore: improving code coverage to 100% branches

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.

[renanmontebelo]

In isLicensePlate.js the hasOwnProperty() function is being used probably as a requirement of es-lintguard-for-in rule. In my opinion this linter rule brings no value here and it's preventing 100% branch coverage in tests.

Checklist

• PR contains only changes related; no stray files, etc.
• README updated (where applicable)
• Tests written (where applicable)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1624 (5530e3d) into master (deb1d1e) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1624 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00% =========================================
Files 100 100 Lines 1807 1800 -7 =========================================
- Hits 1807 1800 -7 

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/lib/isStrongPassword.js	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/lib/isLicensePlate.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update deb1d1e...5530e3d. Read the comment docs.

[tux-tn]

Thank you @renanmontebelo ! Good catch 🎉
I have some questions/suggestions :

• Do you think you can make the same change to other places where we are using hasOwnProperty ? When i added code coverage to the project i used another approach and ignored the else branch of the condition. You can search for // istanbul ignore else to find them.
• Do you think it's harmless to disable guard-for-in directly in eslint config ?
• According to istanbul there is another uncovered branch here in isStrongPassword. Can you take care of it as well?

[renanmontebelo]

@tux-tn I pushed a new commit for the coverage issue in isStrongPassword.

About the other points you mentioned, I think it will be a case-by-case thing. As you can see, the isStrongPassword required the "istambul ignore else" approach because that was the only feasible way of getting the coverage at that point.

For hasOwnProperty I also think it will be case-by-case; if the hasOwnProperty is part of our test code I believe it would be safe to remove it because we know the code that we're testing very well. That might not be true for other parts of the library, I believe I don't have enough experience with the library for a better judgment. I guess that if the hasOwnProperty is not creating coverage issues I'd leave it as is.

These are very good points for discussion you mentioned.

[renanmontebelo]

I'm not sure why the code coverage report here in Github now mentions "Hits -7". In my local it's covering 100%:

[tux-tn]

I guess it's because you removed lines. Hits are total covered lines of code and the total is matching the number in your screenshot. Thank you again! LGTM 🎉
I guess we can leave the other occurences of hasOwnProperty as it right now.