-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
get code coverage in tests #90
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Label type:: is required.
b72f0ad
to
b3731b3
Compare
Total Coverage: 73.30% Coverage Report
|
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm, just curious about one thing
|
||
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v2 | ||
with: | ||
name: coverage.out |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Question: What does this do? I thought jobs ran sequentially, so adding coverage here wouldn't do anything as there's no coverage.out yet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Coverage.out is produced by 'make test'
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You're completely right 🤦
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
We've made determinations in the past not to use test coverage as a metric. cc/ @marccampbell |
That's fair. What I'd really like to have in this is "these are the lines you added, and this is which of those lines are covered" but that might take some actual work to implement. |
Agreeing with @erquhart. I'd like to not include this. In the end, it's not important that every line of code have test coverage, it's important that workflows do. Unfortunately, mapping this to "lines of code" is that best we can do today, but that comes with downsides we'd like to avoid (at least for now). I like the goal here (give more data to the reviewer about the quality of the change). But is there a way we can do it without reporting on "lines of code covered"? |
No description provided.