Seems like some tests aren't happy 😉

Seems like some tests aren't happy 😉

on it..

@tamil777selvan regarding your last commit, I suggest to update the unit test rather than amending the package code. The unit test should be written so they don't break the code not other way around 😉

@tamil777selvan regarding your last commit, I suggest to update the unit test rather than amending the package code. The unit test should be written so they don't break the code not other way around 😉

got it @christian-bromann let me refactor it now.

@christian-bromann, Because the file name is hardcoded, I faced challenges while trying to modify the tests. I also made an attempt to mock the url and path methods as shown, but this caused issues in other areas where the actual path is necessary. Could we consider moving the formatter as part of the constructor arguments in this case? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this suggestion.

vi.mock('url', async (importOriginal) => {
    const mod = await importOriginal()
    return {
       default: {
         ...mod,
        pathToFileURL: vi.fn().mockImplementation((filePath) => ({
                href: 'progress'
        })),
        fileURLToPath: vi.fn().mockImplementation(() => '')
       }
   }
})

vi.mock("path", async (importOriginal) => {
    const mod = await importOriginal()
    return {
        ...mod,
        resolve: vi.fn().mockImplementation((...paths) => ""),
   }
})

Just fyi: the windows tests are failing due to not meeting the coverage treshold. I don't want to block PRs because of this so I will adjust it in main. We overall have a pretty good test coverage.