Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
src/broker/broker.c: Fix typo flux_repond -> flux_respond #851
Current coverage is 71.50% (diff: 0.00%)
@@ master #851 diff @@ ========================================== Files 157 157 Lines 26688 26688 Methods 0 0 Messages 0 0 Branches 0 0 ========================================== - Hits 19087 19084 -3 - Misses 7601 7604 +3 Partials 0 0
Merging, though Al asked why this failed codecov and I didn't really have a good answer.
I get that the diff had no test hits and that this is a bad thing. In this case the error paths have little hope of gaining coverage and so we can just ignore.
The project coverage change should have been zero, so do we need to adjust codecov project thresholds to allow for some noise?
Oct 13, 2016
Codecov creates two cases that are checked for pass/fail
This PR failed the second case, but I kind of take the code coverage checks as advisory, because as you said, though it would be nice, it is not practical to test most error conditions. We could adjust codecov and lower the bar for the
I like that a red flag is raised when a PR doesn't have at least ~70% coverage (or whatever we're currently at)