refactor: Correct under-reported code coverage for Options/parsers

[dblythy]

Issue

src/Options/parsers.js reports ~2.5% coverage on Codecov even though spec/parsers.spec.js fully covers it.

Approach

Turns out it's a coverage measurement artifact, not missing tests. resources/buildConfigDefinitions.js imported parsers from ../src/Options/parsers at module scope. When the spec loads that tooling, nyc instruments the real src/ file a second time (only the top level runs, the parser functions are never called on that path), and that collides with the sourcemap-remapped lib/ coverage coming from parsers.spec.js, clobbering it down to ~2.5%.

mapperFor (the only thing the spec imports) doesn't use parsers anyway - only parseDefaultValue does. Moving the require in there drops the module-scope src instrumentation, so the file reports its true 100% and the generator still works.

Verified by loading parsers.spec.js + buildConfigDefinitions.spec.js together: 40/40 lines with the change, 1/40 without.

Tasks

• Tests already exist (spec/parsers.spec.js)

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved test instrumentation reliability without changing default-value parsing behavior.

[parse-github-assistant]

🚀 Thanks for opening this pull request! We appreciate your effort in improving the project. Please let us know once your pull request is ready for review.

Tip

• Keep pull requests small. Large PRs will be rejected. Break complex features into smaller, incremental PRs.
• Use Test Driven Development. Write failing tests before implementing functionality. Ensure tests pass.
• Group code into logical blocks. Add a short comment before each block to explain its purpose.
• We offer conceptual guidance. Coding is up to you. PRs must be merge-ready for human review.
• Our review focuses on concept, not quality. PRs with code issues will be rejected. Use an AI agent.
• Human review time is precious. Avoid review ping-pong. Inspect and test your AI-generated code.

Note

Please respond to review comments from AI agents just like you would to comments from a human reviewer. Let the reviewer resolve their own comments, unless they have reviewed and accepted your commit, or agreed with your explanation for why the feedback was incorrect.

Caution

Pull requests must be written using an AI agent with human supervision. Pull requests written entirely by a human will likely be rejected, because of lower code quality, higher review effort and the higher risk of introducing bugs. Please note that AI review comments on this pull request alone do not satisfy this requirement. Our CI and AI review are safeguards, not development tools. If many issues are flagged, rethink your development approach. Invest more effort in planning and design rather than using review cycles to fix low-quality code.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: f08c1c63-aabd-44fb-ab36-b9be0ed968cf

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7e9d53a and 720da56.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• resources/buildConfigDefinitions.js

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

buildConfigDefinitions.js now loads the options parsers lazily inside parseDefaultValue, avoiding module-load-time instrumentation while preserving existing parsing behavior.

Changes

Config parser loading

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Lazy default-value parsing resources/buildConfigDefinitions.js	Moves the parsers import from module scope into parseDefaultValue and adds an Istanbul ignore directive.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Suggested reviewers: moumouls, mtrezza

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 6 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (6 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title uses an allowed prefix and clearly describes the parser-loading refactor.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description includes the required Issue, Approach, and Tasks sections and is mostly complete.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Security Check	✅ Passed	Changed code only defers a static require in a build script; no tainted input, eval, path handling, or other advisory-class pattern appears.
Engage In Review Feedback	✅ Passed	The PR addresses the review concern via a follow-up code change, and the summary shows the author requested CodeRabbit review—no sign of ignored feedback.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.89%. Comparing base (cce91e5) to head (720da56).
⚠️ Report is 38 commits behind head on alpha.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            alpha   #10559      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.66%   92.89%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files         193      193              
  Lines       16981    16980       -1     
  Branches      248      248              
==========================================
+ Hits        15736    15774      +38     
+ Misses       1224     1185      -39     
  Partials       21       21              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[mtrezza]

@dblythy Please let CR review first before requesting a human review, thanks.

[dblythy]

@coderabbitai review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.