coveralls-public VS lit

cpan_coverage: This calculates the coverage of your test suite and reports the results. It also uploads the results to coveralls.io

I will normally use GitHub Actions to automatically run my test suite on each push, on every major version of Perl I support. One of the test runs will load Devel::Cover and use it to upload test coverage data to Codecov and Coveralls.

Several years ago I got into Travis CI and set up lots of my GitHub repos so they automatically ran the tests each time I committed to the repo. Later on, I also worked out how to tie those test runs into Coveralls.io so I got pretty graphs of how my test coverage was looking. I gave a talk about what I had done.

This approach will create two json coverage files, which will be merged together by NYC. Therefore the results will be purely local. If You don't mind using online tools like Codecov or Coveralls for merging data from different tests, then go ahead and use them. They will probably also be more accurate. But if You still want to learn how to get coverage from E2E, then please read through

Ideally, software can quickly go from development to production. Continuous deployment and delivery are some processes that make this possible. Continuous deployment means establishing an automated pipeline from development to production while continuous delivery means maintaining the main branch in a deployable state so that a deployment can be requested at any time. Predecos uses these tools. When a commit goes into master, the code is pushed directly to the public environment. Deployment also occurs when a push is made to a development branch enabling local/e2e testing before push to master. In this manner the master branch can be kept clean and ready for deployment most of the time. Problems that surface resulting from changes are visible before reaching master. Additional automated tools are used. Docker images are built for each microservice on commit to a development or master branch, a static code analysis is performed by SonarCloud revealing quality and security problems, Snyk provides vulnerability analysis and CodeClimate provides feedback on code quality while Coveralls provides test coverage. Finally, a CircleCI build is done. Each of these components use badges which give a heads-up display of the health of the system being developed. Incorporating each of these tools into the development process will keep the code on a trajectory of stability. For example, eliminating code smells, security vulnerabilities, and broken tests before merging a pull-request (PR) into master. Using Husky on development machines to ensure that code is well linted and locally tested before it is allowed to be pushed to source-control management (SCM). Applying additional processes such as writing tests around bugs meaning reintroduction of a given bug would cause a test to fail. The automated tools would then require that test to be fixed before push to SCM meaning fewer bugs will be reintroduced. Proper development processes and automation have a strong synergy.

There is https://coveralls.io/ and https://github.com/marketplace/codecov , but they are both priced for commercial usage. Do you know some free alternatives or approaches to have something similiar?

Add a Code Coverage CI step using Coveralls.io Add Dependency monitoring using Snyk

Since there is no need to reinvent the wheel, I will take advantage of an existing github action in the Continuous integration workflows category: Node.js. With this action I will set up this action in one of my public repositories. I will set up Node.js action for automating my unit test and also integrate with coveralls.io for getting a badge of how much my tests covers relevant lines.

Looks like https://github.com/lemurheavy/coveralls-public/issues/632 this issue based on the log. Try going through their solutions, maybe?

That is the reason why I experiment with the TiniJS framework for a while. It is a collection of tools for developing web/desktop/mobile apps using the native Web Component technology, based on the Lit library. Thank you the Lit team for creating a great tool assists us working with standard Web Component easier.

https://github.com/lit/lit/tree/main/packages/labs/virtualiz...

actually, looking at it (https://lit.dev/), i do exactly that.

I also define a `render()` and extend my own parent, which does a `replaceChildren()` with the render. And, strangely, I also call the processor `html`

I'll still stick with mine however, my 'framework' is half-page of code. I dislike dependencies greatly. I'd need to be saving thousand+ lines at least.

Here, I don't want a build system to make a website; that's mad. So I don't want lit. I want the 5 lines it takes to invoke a dom parser, and the 5 lines it takes do define a webcomp parent.

I rather like https://lit.dev/ for web components so far.

For the reactivity stuff, you might want to read https://frontendmasters.com/blog/vanilla-javascript-reactivi... - it shows a bunch of no-library-required patterns that, while in a number of cases I'd much rather use a library myself, all seems at least -basically- reasonable to me and will probably be far more comprehensible to you than whatever I'd reach for, and frameworks are always much more pleasant to approach after you've already done a bunch of stuff by banging rocks together first.

I work on Lit, which I would hesitate to call a framework, but gives a framework-like DX for building web components, while trying to keep opinions to a minimum and lock-in as low as possible.

It's got reactivity, declarative templates, great performance, SSR, TypeScript support, native CSS encapsulation, context, tasks, and more.

It's used to build Material Design, settings and devtools UIs for Chrome, some UI for Firefox, Reddit, Photoshop Web...

https://lit.dev if you're interested.

I am more a fan of the augmented style because it doesn't entrap you in dev lock-in to platforms.

The problem with frameworks, especially web frameworks, is they reimplement many items that are standard now (shadowdom, components, storage, templating, base libraries, class/async, network/realtime etc).

If you like the component style of other frameworks but want to use Web Components, Google Lit is quite nice.

Google Lit is like a combination of HTML Web Components and React/Vue style components. The great part is it is build on Web Components underneath.

[1] https://lit.dev/

From the comments I see here, it seems like people expect the Webcomponents API to be a complete replacement for a JS framework. The thing is, our frameworks should start making use of modern web APIs, so the frameworks will have to do less themselves, so can be smaller. Lit [0] for example is doing this. Using Lit is very similar to using React. Some things work different, and you have to get used to some web component specific things, but once you get it, I think it's way more pleasant to work with than React. It feels more natural, native, less framework-specific.

For state management, I created LitState [1], a tiny library (really only 258 lines), which integrates nicely with Lit, and which makes state management between multiple components very easy. It's much easier than the Redux/flux workflows found in React.

So my experience with this is that it's much nicer to work with, and that the libraries are way smaller.

[0] https://lit.dev/