current status of CITGM
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 606
- Forks
- 157
- Avg merge
- 3d 23h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
I don't think the results are helpful at this point because any issue is tagged as "skip the module" vs "oh maybe there is a problem with this module, who should investigate". So, what if there is actually a bug? I don't think we'd be able to catch breakages... because if we break a module, it would be removed.
On top of that, maintaining a package run as part of CITGM that does any I/O is very hard and frustrating because the failures are seldom reproducible locally. Essentially, we are asking maintainers to add if (process.env.CITGM) (and skip code coverage) to keep them here.
Something that we could improve here is to only run CITGM on a handful of environments that maintainers can easily reproduce.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
The issue discusses CITGM's module-skipping behavior, I/O-related failures, and reducing the environment set, but names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by reviewing the current CITGM environment matrix and skip behavior, then read the linked code-coverage issue. Done would require an agreed, reproducible environment strategy and a defined way to identify genuine module breakages.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript, node.js
- Domain
- testing-qa
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100