Run code coverage on the entire knative/pkg repo

[steuhs]

@adrcunha , as discussed with @mattmoor , we want to try running code coverage on ./

[knative-prow-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: steuhs

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [steuhs]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[adrcunha]

As discussed offline, try to validate this locally and then make final changes instead of using a complex trial-and-error approach.

[adrcunha]

a) Would that automatically exclude //vendor and //test?
b) Why not applying this pattern to all coverage jobs, since it makes sense?

[steuhs]

1. it automatically exclude vendor folder, but not test
2. let's confirm with @jessiezcc and see if we want to apply this pattern to all repos.

[jessiezcc]

can u apply gitattribute to a folder?

[adrcunha]

I suggest that you be consistent with specifying excluded directories in the tool to avoid confusion and conflict, and thus not automatically exclude //vendor and leave that (and //test, in this case) for .gitattributes just like https://github.com/knative/serving/blob/665012885601188d00e54f4da8fe539cd28765be/.gitattributes#L11

[mattmoor]

Can we get the coverage and then prune it back :)

[steuhs]

@jessiezcc yes

[steuhs]

@adrcunha it's go test's default behavior to ignore vendor. Do you mean to specify it explicitly in .gitattributes?

[steuhs]

@mattmoor the current behavior is to get a complete coverage profile and then ignore those files that are marked as coverage-excluded in .gitattributes when summarizing. I guess this is what you meant, right?

[adrcunha]

@steuhs yes

[adrcunha]

/lgtm