Make skip unknown schemas optional

[smithtim]

This PR addresses issue #8 by adding an option skip-unknown-schemas as suggested there, defaulting to false.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #15 into master will decrease coverage by 0.33%.
The diff coverage is 93.33%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #15      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.57%   96.24%   -0.34%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         263      266       +3     
  Branches        8        9       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          254      256       +2     
  Misses          1        1              
- Partials        8        9       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/scim_patch/core.clj	96.38% <93.33%> (-0.55%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1adc1e5...bb853ff. Read the comment docs.

[smithtim]

Does this look good, or do we need to address the code coverage?

[JasonStiefel]

Would be nice to have more coverage, but that shouldn't stop this going through. the functionality is tested.

[rkaippully]

I would like to keep coverage as high as possible, preferably above 97%. That's the only way we can make sure we don't introduce regressions. In the current case, it has covered 93.33% of the changes introduced in this PR and there is room for improvement.

If you go to https://codecov.io/gh/rkaippully/scim-patch/compare/eb360c6365d346a44716045a46eec6febd75a46e...f97b22718bc1a45db23f5e4f4763ebd294bdecdb/diff you can see lines/forms that don't have 100% coverage in yellow or red. BTW, you can run this locally with lein cloverage and get the same report.

[smithtim]

I ran lein cloverage for this branch, but I did not get the same report. Here is what I got:

|-------------------+---------+---------|
|         Namespace | % Forms | % Lines |
|-------------------+---------+---------|
|   scim-patch.core |   98.39 |   99.41 |
| scim-patch.filter |   96.69 |  100.00 |
|  scim-patch.paths |   96.36 |  100.00 |
|-------------------+---------+---------|
|         ALL FILES |   97.75 |   99.63 |
|-------------------+---------+---------|

Thus, it seems that the coverage is already above 97%. Am I missing something?

[rkaippully]

Sorry, let me clarify.

There are two coverage metrics tracked here - codecov/patch tracks what percentage of lines changed in this PR have test coverage and codecov/project tracks what percentage of the total lines in the project have code coverage.

Besides, there is a difference between the output of lein cloverage and codecov. The former tracks all lines in the source file. The latter omits blank lines, comments etc from the calculation. That's why you are seeing a difference in the numbers.

For now, I'll relax the settings so that this PR can be merged. I am trying to make the situation better in #17 and add some more tests so that the coverage is above 97% (it is arbitrary, but we have to draw the line somewhere).

[smithtim]

Thanks, Raghu!