test: increase code coverage

[MiahaCybersec]

Related to #40

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 47.46%. Comparing base (44cc2ad) to head (e4b0946).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #704       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   34.22%   47.46%   +13.23%     
===========================================
  Files          18       18               
  Lines        1677     1677               
===========================================
+ Hits          574      796      +222     
+ Misses       1065      826      -239     
- Partials       38       55       +17     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[MiahaCybersec]

The one failing test is due to mocks relying on github.com/tonistiigi/fsutil/types. This is required for the mocks to work. More specifically, this is required for mocking the behaviour of this line:

copacetic/pkg/buildkit/buildkit.go

Line 88 in 9da1246

return ref.ReadFile(ctx, gwclient.ReadRequest{

[ashnamehrotra]

@MiahaCybersec could you try running "go mod tidy"?

[MiahaCybersec]

Had to resolve some conflicts between my branch and main which forced a merge

[MiahaCybersec]

Due to the way that mocking works with the testify testing framework in Go, mocks will expect certain mock functions to exist even if they are not necessarily called. Some mocks, such as NewContainer, Inputs, and SourceMetaResolver fall into this category. Despite never being explicitly called, our tests will throw panics if these mocks do not exist.

[ashnamehrotra]

LGTM