[ashb155]

Contributor checklist

• This pull request is on a separate branch and not the main branch
• I have ran the ./pre-commit executable as well as make lint and have fixed all reported issues

Description

This PR adds comprehensive unit test coverage for the GET /api/v1/language-stats handler (GetLanguageStats).

Coverage:

• GetLanguageStats: 0.0% -> 100.0%
• api/handlers package: 30.7% -> 36.1%
• Total project coverage: 16.2% -> 17.1%

Related issue

• Closes Add handler tests for GET /api/v1/language-stats #86

[andrewtavis]

question @DeleMike and @ashb155: Are we planning on setting up a CI check for a minimum code coverage at some point? If so, how would we do that? Is there a fail option for the coverage method we're using? Maybe we can set this up when we're over 25%?

[DeleMike]

Yes, I think a minimum coverage check is a great idea, and I'd suggest adding it sooner rather than later.

We can start small and then extend it later.

Go's coverage tools don't have a fail option: go test -cover only reports. So we can add a small CI step after make test-cover that reads the total test coverage and fails if below a MIN_COVERAGE value.

If we later want per-package thresholds or coverage of new code in PRs, we could switch to the go-test-coverage action or Codecov(Not fully free but could work).

Happy to open an issue and PR for this! Should I open the issue?

[DeleMike]

I think all's good here!

Thanks @ashb155

[andrewtavis]

Happy to open an issue and PR for this! Should I open the issue?

Would be great to get an issue, @DeleMike! I don't think we need per-package thresholds or coverage of new code in PRs. We could even just parse the output and get the coverage for PRs, if need be :) Might be the easiest.

[andrewtavis]

praise: All this is looking great to me as well, @ashb155! Thanks for the great work on the tests! 🚀

[DeleMike]

Happy to open an issue and PR for this! Should I open the issue?

Would be great to get an issue, @DeleMike! I don't think we need per-package thresholds or coverage of new code in PRs. We could even just parse the output and get the coverage for PRs, if need be :) Might be the easiest.

Alright, I will open an issue right away!