-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 84
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
added codecov GH action #973
Conversation
ba633c3
to
1efc981
Compare
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #973 +/- ##
=============================================
+ Coverage 34.04% 50.16% +16.11%
- Complexity 291 606 +315
=============================================
Files 71 86 +15
Lines 3818 5073 +1255
Branches 437 632 +195
=============================================
+ Hits 1300 2545 +1245
+ Misses 2397 2282 -115
- Partials 121 246 +125 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
728ba84
to
62a2ffb
Compare
@chandrashekar-s please note that the numbers reported by Codecov are not accurate but I am guessing it is due to having a bad baseline. I like to merge this PR since the local Jacoco report makes sense; we will see if in future PRs the Codecov issue will be fixed or not. |
Thanks @chandrashekar-s for the review and for noting the errors. I am not sure what the root cause of 500s are but when I was debugging this on Friday, there were certainly runs with no such errors. For example this is a codecov action run with no such errors (done before the Dockerfile commit). As commented above, my guess is that these are due to having a bad baseline, but I am not sure. So if you don't mind, I am going to merge this and if the issue does not go away, I'll resume debugging codecov's upload issue. |
Sure, please go ahead and merge the PR. Also, I see that the latest codecov build is successful and the test coverage reported now is ~50%. The incremental report is not accurate as of now, may be because as you pointed out the base report is lagging behind a lot. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @bashir2 for enabling the codecov report. Later on, when the reporting is stabilized we should probably add some checks for min test coverage and others.
@bashir2 , @chandrashekar-s guys needed your help with the authentication I am stuck in, if you guys can make some time for this it would turn out to be much helpful for me |
Hi @LovjeetVyas, I have replied to your query in this issue. Also, can you please file a new issue, so that it can be discussed there. |
Description of what I changed
Attempting to address issue #666.
E2E test
TESTED:
Ran
mvn
locally and verified that the Jacoco report generated locally makes sense.Checklist: I completed these to help reviewers :)
I have read and will follow the review process.
I am familiar with Google Style Guides for the language I have coded in.
No? Please take some time and review Java and Python style guides.
My IDE is configured to follow the Google code styles.
No? Unsure? -> configure your IDE.
I have added tests to cover my changes. (If you refactored existing code that was well tested you do not have to add tests)
I ran
mvn clean package
right before creating this pull request and added all formatting changes to my commit.All new and existing tests passed.
My pull request is based on the latest changes of the master branch.
No? Unsure? -> execute command
git pull --rebase upstream master