fix(quality): raise .coverage-baseline to the value actually measured on development - #39
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…opment 79.28 came from the most recent coverage-report artifact, which was a pull_request run of a different branch: 3373 statements against development's 3448. Recency is not provenance. 79.70 (2748/3448) comes from run 30925522964 - push, development, sha 5489cb4 - verified by the artifact's workflow_run.head_branch and head_sha. The ratchet is an exact-equality check, so 'close' fails.
rubenvdlinde
requested review from
Rem-Dam,
SudoThijn,
WilcoLouwerse,
bbrands02,
remko48 and
rjzondervan
as code owners
August 4, 2026 19:31
Contributor
Quality Report — ConductionNL/portaliq @
|
| Check | PHP | Vue | Security | License | Tests |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lint | ✅ | ||||
| phpcs | ✅ | ||||
| phpmd | ✅ | ||||
| psalm | ✅ | ||||
| phpstan | ✅ | ||||
| phpmetrics | ✅ | ||||
| eslint | ✅ | ||||
| stylelint | ✅ | ||||
| build | ✅ | ||||
| check-specs | ✅ | ||||
| check-manifest | ❌ | ||||
| composer | ✅ | ✅ 100/100 | |||
| npm | ✅ | ✅ 871/871 | |||
| PHPUnit | ✅ | ||||
| Newman | ✅ | ||||
| Playwright | ✅ |
Quality workflow — 2026-08-04 19:36 UTC
Download the full PDF report from the workflow artifacts.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Raises
.coverage-baselinefrom79.28to79.70, closing theCoverage Baseline Checkfailure ondevelopment.Why the first value was slightly wrong
79.28was taken fromclover.xmlin the most recentcoverage-reportartifact at the time — which was a
pull_requestrun of a different branch,not
development. Recency is not provenance:coverage-reportis uploaded byevery run with PHPUnit enabled, on any branch, and nothing inside the file says
which branch produced it.
development, sha5489cb4e75 statements apart — a small gap, but the ratchet is an exact-equality check
(
update-baselinesucceeds only when the recomputed value leaves the fileunchanged), so "close" fails. That strictness is the point.
The value here is read from the artifact of the push run on
developmentatthe current head sha, verified via
.workflow_run.head_branchand.workflow_run.head_sharather than by being newest.Related
coverage-baselineartifact. That artifact has never existed —.coverage-baselineis a dotfile andactions/upload-artifact@v4skips hiddenfiles by default, warning instead of failing. Fixed fleet-wide in
fix(quality): two dead gates in the coverage ratchet — an artifact that never existed, and a job deleted by an unrelated failure .github#156.
fix(quality): raise .coverage-baseline to the value actually measured on development docudesk#379.
Coverage Baseline Protectionaccepts any value that does not LOWER thebaseline, so this raise passes the PR-side gate.