feat: added coverage annotations filters

[xShteff]

Hi there @ArtiomTr, hope it's alright I open a PR here.

We tried using your action and found it a bit loud. For five lines of code it managed to produce an equal amount of annotations. I've tried to pull out a way to filter out some of these, also updated some of your tests to match the new implementation.

Let me know if I missed anything :)

[github-actions]

Coverage report

St.❔	Category	Percentage	Covered / Total
🟢	Statements	95.39% (+0.89% 🔼)	848/889
🟢	Branches	88.84% (+1.77% 🔼)	430/484
🟢	Functions	93.14% (+1.01% 🔼)	163/175
🟢	Lines	95.01% (+1.01% 🔼)	762/802

Show new covered files 🐣

St.❔	File	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
🟢	... / getFailedTestsAnnotationsBody.ts	100%	100%	100%	100%
🟢	... / getTestRunSummary.ts	100%	100%	100%	100%
🟢	... / CoverageAnnotationType.ts	100%	100%	100%	100%

Show files with reduced coverage 🔻

St.❔	File	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
🟢	typings/Options.ts	97.83% (-2.17% 🔻)	88.24% (+1.57% 🔼)	83.33% (-16.67% 🔻)	97.67% (-2.33% 🔻)
🟢	... / switchBranch.ts	94.87% (+1.12% 🔼)	87.5% (-12.5% 🔻)	100%	94.44% (+1.34% 🔼)
🟢	run.ts	90.82% (-0.21% 🔻)	83.84% (-2.13% 🔻)	100%	90.72% (-0.19% 🔻)
🟡	... / checkThreshold.ts	75.51% (-0.05% 🔻)	50% (-50% 🔻)	46.15%	75%
🟢	... / getNormalThreshold.ts	87.5% (+1.79% 🔼)	50% (-50% 🔻)	100%	85.71% (+2.38% 🔼)
🟢	... / parseJestConfig.ts	100%	80% (-7.5% 🔻)	100%	100%

Test suite run success

168 tests passing in 57 suites.

Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 7fba574

[xShteff]

Actually I see the coverage for Options.ts went down - I'll look into it :)

[ArtiomTr]

Hello @xShteff,

Thank you for the contribution. Coverage in Options.ts isn't a big deal.

About your problem - I think it is better to have something like #147, than filtering coverage annotations - you can accidentally filter out important annotations.

[xShteff]

Thank you for the contribution. Coverage in Options.ts isn't a big deal.

Fair enough, I'll mark it as ready then :)

About your problem - I think it is better to have something like #147, than filtering coverage annotations - you can accidentally filter out important annotations.

This issue comes with any service that allows for customisation. I've allowed by default all the annotations so that existing users will not have to worry about mentioning anything - I still believe that a filter option would be nice to have, as long as the user understands its implications.

Perhaps at some point it could be worth looking into comments as well, but for now this would bring us a lot of value (:

[ArtiomTr]

Perhaps at some point it could be worth looking into comments as well, but for now this would bring us a lot of value (:

Yeah, I understand that it is a good fix to reduce loudness. But my point is - maybe uncovered line annotations will suit your needs? I just don't want to add a new feature, that is likely to be deprecated once uncovered line annotations will land. I believe, that user expects to see which lines are not covered, not statements/branches/functions.

[xShteff]

Perhaps at some point it could be worth looking into comments as well, but for now this would bring us a lot of value (:

Yeah, I understand that it is a good fix to reduce loudness. But my point is - maybe uncovered line annotations will suit your needs? I just don't want to add a new feature, that is likely to be deprecated once uncovered line annotations will land. I believe, that user expects to see which lines are not covered, not statements/branches/functions.

It is fair - in the end it's your repo and it's up to you if you want to introduce the feature or not :). In my mind this is not a enforced change but a possibility to make it more customisable to fit our specific use case.

Let me know if I should close the PR :)