-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 644
Test on 3.10.0-beta.2 #1069
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
Test on 3.10.0-beta.2 #1069
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1069 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 70.71% 70.48% -0.24%
===========================================
Files 79 79
Lines 7616 7616
===========================================
- Hits 5386 5368 -18
- Misses 2230 2248 +18 |
@Mergifyio rebase |
Command
|
I tried to fix the codecov issues by using the codecov action, but maybe the problems are not even caused by my changes: codecov/codecov-action#330 |
This would also remove coverage collection when testing on Travis (which is only relevant for Socketcan). |
I don't think so. For travis it is still called via tox file. @hardbyte the replies on stackoverflow suggest that rotating the codecov token might help. Could you try? |
Yes and No. If I understand it correctly, that is removed from the tox file here. |
But only for the github environment. The command is still present for Travis |
The failures of Travis should be fixed on develop by now, so an update should get this CI to become green: @Mergifyio update |
Command
|
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.
Sorry for the delay looking at this.
I assume the codecov token is fine as is?
Co-authored-by: Felix Divo <4403130+felixdivo@users.noreply.github.com>
Pytest update was necessary due to pytest-dev/pytest#8540
Trace