Skip to content
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

Remove the 'Code Coverage Status' badge from the build status table #19265

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 2, 2023

Conversation

daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member

PR Summary

Remove the 'Code Coverage Status' badge from the build status table because https://codecov.io/gh/PowerShell/PowerShell had become deactivated.

PR Checklist

@ghost ghost assigned PaulHigin Mar 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw assigned daxian-dbw and unassigned PaulHigin Mar 2, 2023
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw added CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log CL-Docs Indicates that a PR should be marked as a documentation change in the Change Log and removed CL-CodeCleanup Indicates that a PR should be marked as a Code Cleanup change in the Change Log labels Mar 2, 2023
@pull-request-quantifier-deprecated

This PR has 8 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!


Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +3 -5
Percentile : 3.2%

Total files changed: 1

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +3 -5

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

  • Fast and predictable releases to production:
    • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
      iterations.
    • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
  • Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
    • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
    • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected.
  • Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
    • Small portions can be assimilated better.
  • Better engineering practices are exercised:
    • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
    • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

  • Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
    • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
    • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
    • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Change your engineering behaviors
    • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
      • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
      • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

  • One line was added: +1 -0
  • One line was deleted: +0 -1
  • One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
    interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
  • Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
    of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.


Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw merged commit 87078a7 into PowerShell:master Mar 2, 2023
15 checks passed
@daxian-dbw daxian-dbw deleted the cv branch March 2, 2023 21:23
@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Mar 3, 2023

Could you please clarify what is our policy about code coverage? Aren't we interested in that?

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

We are interested to have coverage data of the code base, but its priority is low because we have lots of more important tasks.

@iSazonov
Copy link
Collaborator

iSazonov commented Mar 3, 2023

Eh, maybe someone in the community could customize CodeCov if you posted the requirements in an issue.

@daxian-dbw
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe @JamesWTruher or @adityapatwardhan can do that. But even if a community member picks up the work, it may still be a low priority for the team to help or review the work, so it's better to set the right expectations.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Mar 14, 2023

🎉v7.4.0-preview.2 has been released which incorporates this pull request.:tada:

Handy links:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CL-Docs Indicates that a PR should be marked as a documentation change in the Change Log Extra Small
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants