Jnj templates scripts 5 true positive#225
Jnj templates scripts 5 true positive#225munoztd0 wants to merge 2 commits intojnj_templates_scriptsfrom
Conversation
Unit Tests Summary 1 files 274 suites 14m 14s ⏱️ Results for commit b209e46. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Unit Test Performance DifferenceTest suite performance difference
Additional test case details
Results for commit 565be16 ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
Hey @Melkiades , not sure I follow your question. So I will recap to see if that clears things out.
So this is a "mock" PR to show what would the Hope this answer to you question but please let me know if I totally went sideways. |
|
if we change the colwidth here, just a single number, that will blow up everything right? |
That is true |
|
hi @munoztd0 , is this PR still intend to merge in? or shall we close. |
I think it is not meant to be merged in but still there are no snapshot changes while I would expect that if the decoration of rtf is still to consider relevant beyond the content |
|
my discussion with @gmbecker , was that the colwidth column widths will be fixed. otherwise the whole thing will fail, anyway, these snapshot should be dead and fixed, the content, number changes detction is essential. |
|
@shajoezhu @Melkiades Indeed none of these PRs where meant to be merged they are feature branches to show you what would happen if some specific scenarios would be happening, but all the actual fixes are in #209 |
See #209
This is the a final extra PR to show the improvements we done to fence off spurious column widths changes by "precomputing" the column widths beforehand and "hardcoding" them into the tests/templates.
Goal: demonstrate a true positive diff (e.g., changing some formats is tsids01) that results in only cell-level changes, not spurious column-width diffs.
This is the only diff we get now from changing some formats is tsids01

https://github.com/insightsengineering/scda.test/actions/runs/22768812763/job/66043787143