Version 0.6.0 #10
Version 0.6.0 #10
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 0.00% 94.36% +94.36%
==========================================
Files 11 33 +22
Lines 517 1012 +495
==========================================
+ Hits 0 955 +955
+ Misses 517 57 -460
|
Tests/OrdersTests/OrdersTests.swift
Outdated
| @testable import Orders | ||
| @testable import PassKit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it possible to remove @testable here and just test the public API? Are there any internals that need to be tested and if so might it make sense to move them to a separate file? cc @0xTim
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I need to create and encode some package DTOs (defined in the PassKit target, as they are shared) to test Passes and Orders API endpoints
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well if they're package they should be accessible in the tests too right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I added the PassKit target to the dependencies of the test target (previously it was only a dependency of the main Passes and Orders targets) and now it doesn't require @testable.
For Passes and Orders I wouldn't remove the @testable attribute because there are some internals that can be tested
Cory Benfield told me on Slack that encrypted PEM keys aren't supported because they use old encryption schemes (I assume DES) that they don't plan to support in Swift Crypto |
fpseverino
dismissed
ptoffy’s stale review
I made all the requested changes and received another approval
PKPassschema toPassopenssltoswift-certificatesfor unencrypted private keysvapor-community/Zipfor bundle compression