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

Use codecov instead of coveralls #217

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 5, 2016

Conversation

3 participants
@skirpichev
Copy link
Collaborator

skirpichev commented Feb 5, 2016

No description provided.

@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

codecov-io commented Feb 5, 2016

Current coverage is 89.01%

Branch #217 has no coverage reports uploaded yet.

No diff could be generated. No reports for master found.

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

skirpichev added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2016

Merge pull request #217 from skirpichev/use-codecov
Use codecov instead of coveralls

@skirpichev skirpichev merged commit c3ca1e1 into master Feb 5, 2016

3 checks passed

codecov/patch coverage not affected
Details
codecov/project 89.01% (no previous report found to compare against)
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@skirpichev skirpichev deleted the use-codecov branch Feb 5, 2016

@skirpichev

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

skirpichev commented Feb 5, 2016

Nice tool, @asmeurer thank you for hint in sympy/sympy#10519.
But it counts coverage somehow different, c.f.:
https://codecov.io/github/skirpichev/omg?ref=master
and (with same .coveragerc):
https://coveralls.io/github/skirpichev/omg
Maybe the first codecov submission (short gmpy run) had been ignored,
but this shouldn't add too much difference (gmpy test add only few unique lines to the whole coverage).

@skirpichev skirpichev modified the milestone: 0.8.0 Sep 9, 2016

@gxyd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gxyd commented Oct 23, 2017

Do you need to run the codcov manually or is it run automatically? Also does it lead to doubling the run time of test suite? Is this run on all versions of Python?

@skirpichev

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

skirpichev commented Oct 23, 2017

Do you need to run the codcov manually or is it run automatically?

You could take look on any recent PR, instead of asking dumb questions.

Also does it lead to doubling the run time of test suite?

Not to doubling, perhaps, but it noticeably increase running time. That's why I don't gather coverage stats for slow and xfail'ed tests. See .travis.yml.

Is this run on all versions of Python?

There shouldn't be version-specific workarounds. So, no. Again, see .travis.yml.

@gxyd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gxyd commented Oct 23, 2017

You could take look on any recent PR, instead of asking dumb questions.

I looked at them. I saw codecov was run on all (the ones I saw) PR's. It still could have been the case that you were manually starting them all.

@skirpichev

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

skirpichev commented Oct 23, 2017

It still could have been the case that you were manually starting them all.

Any thoughts why you would like to manually trigger coverage build and submit results for a required check? That's silly.

@gxyd

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

gxyd commented Oct 23, 2017

Not unless every pull request is a doctest change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment