Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.52%. Comparing base (f16c747) to head (30a8d35).
Report is 18 commits behind head on next.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next     #529      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.76%   92.52%   +2.76%     
==========================================
  Files           6       26      +20     
  Lines         127      589     +462     
  Branches       25       99      +74     
==========================================
+ Hits          114      545     +431     
- Misses         10       35      +25     
- Partials        3        9       +6     

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

@craig0990 I have fixed the issue :)
Ran the e2e workflow with your changes and now we can see the failing tests: https://github.com/suites-dev/suites/actions/runs/12381566430/job/34560407726
Let me know if it helps

Thanks @omermorad - seeing it failing in E2E did get me past the "what am I missing" stage; although I'll admit that locally I hijacked the e2e suite by adding it to the root workspaces to get linked dependencies to play with.

It looks like a missing return value to me, which I've added in the latest commit. I can see that the codecov needs looking at, so will make that the next thing to take a look at, and potentially the same E2E test but for some of the other DI suites.

Thanks @omermorad - seeing it failing in E2E did get me past the "what am I missing" stage; although I'll admit that locally I hijacked the e2e suite by adding it to the root workspaces to get linked dependencies to play with.

It looks like a missing return value to me, which I've added in the latest commit. I can see that the codecov needs looking at, so will make that the next thing to take a look at, and potentially the same E2E test but for some of the other DI suites.

@craig0990
E2E is our hero! 🦸🏻
I've noticed the absence of the return value, and the e2e test is now successful 🎉
Regarding the code coverage, I recommend checking out this link. It contains the integration test we should utilize to address the gaps.

I have some reservations regarding the other e2e tests, as we're focusing on core functionality rather than aspects related to dependency injection or mocking libraries, maybe we should just cover in nestjs-jest

@craig0990 There appears to be a problem with the commits due to an error I made with the next branch. Could you please open a new PR?

@omermorad I can rebase it, next is the correct target branch right?

@craig0990 Awesome! LGTM! :)
Fixed some lint..