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 shows 0% coverage for a matrix CI workflow on GitHub #536

Open
LinqLover opened this issue Jun 21, 2021 · 5 comments
Open

Coveralls shows 0% coverage for a matrix CI workflow on GitHub #536

LinqLover opened this issue Jun 21, 2021 · 5 comments

Comments

@LinqLover
Copy link
Collaborator

Here is one of the erroneously calculated builds: https://coveralls.io/builds/40758673 However, all other current builds look identically. Note that the CI passes on GitHub and the local TestRunner in my image attests me a 50% coverage. In particular, note that in the past™ it already had worked: https://coveralls.io/builds/40745486

In that earlier build, I had fail-fast enabled and some jobs failing, but could this make a difference?
Does smalltalkCI handle parallel runs or do I have to use the coverallsapp action manually as described in the docs?

@LinqLover
Copy link
Collaborator Author

PS: Is there an option to optimistically merge all coverage data for platform-specific code branches or would coveralls do this for me automatically? :)

@fniephaus
Copy link
Member

I vaguely remember adding a parallel flag and that CI would need to tell coveralls specifically about the completion of a build unit:

local parallel="${COVERALLS_PARALLEL:-}"

I'm afraid I don't have any answers for your questions. If you could explore and improve the docs, that would be great.

@LinqLover
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I added the COVERALLS_PARALLEL to my build but this didn't help. I'm also confused because on this repository, the coverage has always been detected correctly ... Is this really non-deterministic behavior and based on the order of job execution? 🤔

@fniephaus
Copy link
Member

It's very much possible that the order is important. If you could debug this that'd be great!

@gcotelli
Copy link
Collaborator

gcotelli commented Oct 26, 2021 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants