-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
Add desktop autotype unittests for windows #16710
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
New Issues (18)Checkmarx found the following issues in this Pull Request
|
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #16710 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 38.79% 38.76% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 3394 3406 +12
Lines 96440 96673 +233
Branches 14468 14533 +65
==========================================
+ Hits 37413 37479 +66
- Misses 57394 57556 +162
- Partials 1633 1638 +5 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
🎟️ Tracking
https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-26023
📔 Objective
The purpose of this PR is to add unit test coverage for the windows implementation of autotype. Specifically, there are errors that can occur in the Win32 API
unsafe
code, that is not manually testable.This has a natural side effect of the additional benefit of more cleanly isolating the Win32 API calls into traits.
The file became > 500 lines so I separated it into the constituent modules, one for window title and one for typing input.
Also, after I posted this PR I was looking at the GHA runs and noticed the new unit tests weren't being exercised... I tracked that down and opened up a separate investigation here: #16711
📸 Screenshots
⏰ Reminders before review
🦮 Reviewer guidelines
:+1:
) or similar for great changes:memo:
) or ℹ️ (:information_source:
) for notes or general info:question:
) for questions:thinking:
) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:
) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion:art:
) for suggestions / improvements:x:
) or:warning:
) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention:seedling:
) or ♻️ (:recycle:
) for future improvements or indications of technical debt:pick:
) for minor or nitpick changes