[calixteman]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Viewer preview

🗑️ Viewer previews removed.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.55%. Comparing base (50d1307) to head (8621622).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #22463      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.55%   90.55%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         276      276              
  Lines       68582    68582              
==========================================
- Hits        62105    62102       -3     
- Misses       6477     6480       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fonttest	9.11% <ø> (ø)
integrationtest	69.64% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittest	62.80% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unittestcli	60.37% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.

[codspeed]

Merging this PR will improve performance by 15.02%

⚡ 1 improved benchmark
✅ 87 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 174 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	getUnicodeRangeFor (bug1473809.pdf)	26.8 ms	23.3 ms	+15.02%

Tip

Curious why performance improved? Comment @codspeedbot explain why performance improved on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing calixteman:bug2084956 (8621622) with master (2b183c9)²}

Footnotes

1. 174 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on master (50d1307) during the generation of this report, so 2b183c9 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[timvandermeij]

Thanks!