Skip to content

Enabled running mixed Vitest and Karma tests with merged coverage report#19968

Open
martnpaneq wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
i/4307-test-wrapper
Open

Enabled running mixed Vitest and Karma tests with merged coverage report#19968
martnpaneq wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
i/4307-test-wrapper

Conversation

@martnpaneq
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@martnpaneq martnpaneq commented Mar 17, 2026

🚀 Summary

Enabled running mixed Vitest and Karma tests with merged coverage report.
This enables the Vitest migration. From now on, we could use either

  • pnpm test -f <package_name> to run tests for a single package with automatic Vitest/Karma detection, or
  • vitest run --project <package_name> to run migrated packages.

Warning

Enablig Vitest requires changes in ckeditor5-dev to be merged and released. The new version should be bumped in dependencies: ckeditor/ckeditor5-dev#1317.


💡 Additional information

Optional: Notes on decisions, edge cases, or anything helpful for reviewers.


🧾 Checklists

Use the following checklists to ensure important areas were not overlooked.
This does not apply to feature-branch merges.
If an item is not relevant to this type of change, simply leave it unchecked.

Author checklist

  • Is the changelog entry intentionally omitted?
  • Is the change backward-compatible?
  • Have you considered the impact on different editor setups and core interactions? (e.g., classic/inline/multi-root/many editors, typing, selection, paste, tables, lists, images, collaboration, pagination)
  • Has the change been manually verified in the relevant setups?
  • Does this change affect any of the above?
  • Is performance impacted?
  • Is accessibility affected?
  • Have tests been added that fail without this change (against regression)?
  • Have the API documentation, guides, feature digest, and related feature sections been updated where needed?
  • Have metadata files (ckeditor5-metadata.json) been updated if needed?
  • Are there any changes the team should be informed about (e.g. architectural, difficult to revert in future versions or having impact on other features)?
  • Were these changes documented (in Logbook)?

Reviewer checklist

  • PR description explains the changes and the chosen approach (especially when performance, API, or UX is affected).
  • The changelog entry is clear, user‑ or integrator-facing, and it describes any breaking changes.
  • All new external dependencies have been approved and mentioned in LICENSE.md (if any).
  • All human-readable, translateable strings in this PR been introduced using t() (if any).
  • I manually verified the change (e.g., in manual tests or documentation).
  • The target branch is correct.

@martnpaneq martnpaneq marked this pull request as ready for review March 19, 2026 11:54
@martnpaneq martnpaneq requested a review from a team as a code owner March 19, 2026 11:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants