[SPARK-54441][INFRA] Enable coverage data for workers #53145
Closed
Conversation
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
Contributor
Author
|
@HyukjinKwon , we talked about the coverage for workers. I think I made it work - without changing any spark code. |
dongjoon-hyun
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2025
Member
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
dongjoon-hyun
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 for testing in master branch after merging. Thank you, @gaogaotiantian .
HyukjinKwon
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2025
Member
|
Merged to master. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 changes were proposed in this pull request?
By patching the worker in coverage runs, we save coverage data for code executed in workers. This code will only be triggered in coverage runs, not normal runs.
Also we uses the zip lib for many tests, this PR will also combine the coverage data with the
[paths]config in.coveragerc.Why are the changes needed?
To have a better idea of what test coverage we are missing in our tests suite.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
Manually test that coverage data shows up for the worker file.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.