test(presence): Add snapshot tests for submitted signals

[tylerbutler]

Adds a mock ephemeral runtime that snapshots each signal submitted through it. The idea is to use these snapshots to verify the correct signals are submitted in the correct order.

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 8 changed files in this pull request and generated 3 suggestions.

Files not reviewed (2)

• packages/framework/presence/package.json: Language not supported
• packages/framework/presence/src/test/snapshots/notificationsManager.vitest.ts.snap: Language not supported

Comments skipped due to low confidence (2)

packages/framework/presence/src/notificationsManager.ts:182

• The use of 'any' for 'eventName' might introduce unintended behavior. Ensure that the types are consistent and consider resolving the typing issues without using 'any'.

const eventName: any = value.value.name;

packages/framework/presence/src/notificationsManager.ts:183

• The use of 'Parameters<NotificationSubscriptions[any]>' for 'eventArgs' might introduce unintended behavior. Ensure that the types are consistent and consider resolving the typing issues without using 'any'.

const eventArgs = value.value.args as Parameters<NotificationSubscriptions<T>[any]>;

Tip: Copilot code review supports C#, Go, Java, JavaScript, Markdown, Python, Ruby and TypeScript, with more languages coming soon. Learn more

The '@ts-expect-error' comment indicates a suppressed typing error. Investigate if this typing error can be resolved properly instead of being suppressed.

The '@ts-expect-error' comment indicates a suppressed typing error. Investigate if this typing error can be resolved properly instead of being suppressed.

The '@ts-expect-error' comment indicates a suppressed typing error. Investigate if this typing error can be resolved properly instead of being suppressed.

[msfluid-bot]

Code Coverage Summary

↓ packages.framework.presence.src:
Line Coverage Change: -10.93%    Branch Coverage Change: -55.48%

Metric Name	Baseline coverage	PR coverage	Coverage Diff
Branch Coverage	84.05%	28.57%	↓ -55.48%
Line Coverage	62.58%	51.65%	↓ -10.93%

---

Baseline commit: 9f60ea3
Baseline build: 305751
Happy Coding!!

Code coverage comparison check failed!!
More Details: Readme

• Skip This Check!!

What to do if the code coverage check fails:

• Ideally, add more tests to increase the code coverage for the package(s) whose code-coverage regressed.

• If a regression is causing the build to fail and is due to removal of tests, removal of code with lots of tests or any other valid reason, there is a checkbox further up in this comment that determines if the code coverage check should fail the build or not. You can check the box and trigger the build again. The test coverage analysis will still be done, but it will not fail the build if a regression is detected.

• Unchecking the checkbox and triggering another build should go back to failing the build if a test-coverage regression is detected.

• You can check which lines are covered or not covered by your tests with these steps:

  • Go to the PR ADO build.
  • Click on the link to see its published artifacts. You will see an artifact named codeCoverageAnalysis, which you can expand to reach to a particular source file's coverage html which will show which lines are covered/not covered by your tests.
  • You can also run different kind of tests locally with :coverage tests commands to find out the coverage.