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

Coveralls isn't solid enough #4694

bagder opened this issue Dec 10, 2019 · 1 comment

Coveralls isn't solid enough #4694

bagder opened this issue Dec 10, 2019 · 1 comment


Copy link

bagder commented Dec 10, 2019

I did this

I've tried to rely on coveralls to tell us data about test coverage. It keeps reporting ridiculous numbers and very often shows bogus red warnings like this:

Screenshot_2019-12-10 Fixes for --disable-doh by MarcelRaad · Pull Request #4692 · curl curl

(screenshot from #4692 - the coverage was never 81% so this claimed 7% decrease is a complete lie)

I expected the following

Reliable info. As this works now, I think it typically does more harm than good: it generates red builds completely arbitrary and even when green the numbers it shows are then hard to trust.


The test coverage is valuable information but changes very rarely. We could probably change the coveralls to get run in a cronjob somewhere every now and then instead. I intend to switch it off from the CI system due to its "unreliablity".

@bagder bagder added the build label Dec 10, 2019
@bagder bagder self-assigned this Dec 10, 2019
bagder added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2019
The coveralls service and test coverage numbers are just too unreliable.
Removed badge from as well.

Fixes #4694
Copy link

dfandrich commented Dec 10, 2019 via email

@bagder bagder closed this as completed in 83c0e96 Dec 10, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 10, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants