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

coverage % changes even though no code change occurred #630

Closed
epikhighs opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

coverage % changes even though no code change occurred #630

epikhighs opened this issue Jul 13, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@epikhighs
Copy link

epikhighs commented Jul 13, 2017

Expected Behavior

code coverage %s stay the same across multiple coverage runs using the --all option. If i do not use --all then the code coverage % stays constant.

Observed Behavior

Even though I do not make any code change, code coverage %s varies b/t two values %Lines 49.5% and 50.44%.

Babel is perhaps behaving in an unexpected way with with the output.

When I dig into the /coverage directory, the coverage reports show that certain files are either missing or code coverage is not the same in the same file b/t the runs that show variance in % coverage.

Verified that deleting the ./nyc_output directory each time does not help either.

File                         |  % Stmts | % Branch |  % Funcs |  % Lines |Uncovered Lines |
-----------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------------|
All files                    |    49.26 |    33.48 |     40.4 |     49.5 |                |


-----------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------------|
File                         |  % Stmts | % Branch |  % Funcs |  % Lines |Uncovered Lines |
-----------------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------------|
All files                    |     49.9 |    31.17 |    41.98 |    50.44 |                |

Bonus Points! Code (or Repository) that Reproduces Issue

Forensic Information

Operating System: win 7 64bit
Environment Information:

https://gist.github.com/anonymous/2c5480ae0f397a7cecd82481b9054e5e

@epikhighs
Copy link
Author

I think the problem was some combination of not using the babel instanbul plugin and including too much in "include" option (I was matching with a leading ** in the include).

But I think it's now producing consistent coverage % for now.

@bcoe
Copy link
Member

bcoe commented Aug 1, 2017

@epikhighs that's good news 👍 please let me know if you run into any more issues in the future.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants