aglinxinyuan opened a new pull request, #7629:
URL: https://github.com/apache/texera/pull/7629
### What changes were proposed in this PR?
`agent-panel.component.html` reported **0 of 49 lines** while its own `.ts`
sat at **133/133 with nothing missed**. That pairing can only be attribution
loss — this template is one of the better-tested in the frontend. The cause is
#7458: the spec stubs its children out with `TestBed.overrideComponent`, and
any override re-JITs the component from its decorator metadata, leaving the
re-compiled template with no source map back to the `.html`.
Adds a `describe` block that renders the component with its **real**
children:
| | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| `agent-panel.component.html` | 0/49 | **49/49** |
| `agent-panel.component.ts` | 133/133 | 133/133 |
The block keeps its own `TestBed`, so the 42 existing tests keep their stubs
and assertions untouched. Same remedy as merged PR #7535. Rendering the real
children also incidentally lifts the child templates' own coverage.
### Verification
18 mutations applied and reverted, production diff empty each time.
**Two of my new tests then turned out to claim more than they could observe,
and both are fixed:**
| Test | Why it could not fail | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| "force-renders every tab body: the registration form and one chat per
agent" | the registration tab **is** the selected tab, so its body renders
whether or not `[nzForceRender]` is set — flipping it to `false` left the suite
green | select an agent tab first, so the registration body is present only if
force-rendered; the tautological `selectedTabIndex` assertion was dropped |
| "the close button ... deletes that agent without selecting its tab" |
`selectedTabIndex` was already 0 and `activateAgent` already un-called, so both
assertions held with `event.stopPropagation()` deleted | start on the first
agent's tab and assert the click does not activate the neighbour |
Both exposing mutations — the registration tab losing `nzForceRender`, and
the close handler losing `stopPropagation` — are now red.
That second one is worth spelling out: the mutation *did* turn the suite red
before the fix, but the failure came from a **pre-existing** test elsewhere in
the file, while the new test stayed green. A red suite is not evidence that the
test under discussion pins anything.
### Deliberately not included
Nothing in this PR pins the child components' internals; the assertions stay
on this template's own structure and branches.
No production file is touched.
### Any related issues, documentation, discussions?
Closes #7628
### How was this PR tested?
```
npx ng test --watch=false --include="**/agent-panel.component.spec.ts"
```
```
Test Files 1 passed (1)
Tests 51 passed (51)
```
9 new on top of the existing 42. Coverage re-measured by reverting the spec,
running with `--coverage`, and restoring. `yarn format:ci` passes.
### Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
