Improve Aggregated Log Output with additional getters (#39)#80
Open
MikeDabrowski wants to merge 1 commit intojoeljeske:masterfrom
Open
Improve Aggregated Log Output with additional getters (#39)#80MikeDabrowski wants to merge 1 commit intojoeljeske:masterfrom
MikeDabrowski wants to merge 1 commit intojoeljeske:masterfrom
Conversation
MikeDabrowski
changed the title
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Following the discussion in Aggregated Log Output #39 I debugged the issue with brief-reporter. Two getters were missing.
What is the current behavior?
Aggregated Log Output #39 - Brief fails because it receives undefined from karma-parallel
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
The output log object contains two additional getters for success and for skipped tests. No other changes.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
No
Other information:
I don't feel the need to add tests for that, but if maintainers ever look at this PR and find it worthy, just drop me a line and I'll try to add some.