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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for coveralls.io coverage reports #1539
Conversation
Changes Unknown when pulling aa10f8c on maul-esel:coveralls into * on mojombo:master*. |
Huh cool, didn't even know it does that. One more pro argument. |
Funny, just did this and now: Test coverage Travis-CI + CodeCilmate. Need to check this out. |
So much cruft with the |
Me neither. Let's check out that CodeClimate stuff first, I think that could be integrated much better. |
OK, it seems CodeClimate test coverage only works if you have a CodeClimate account 馃挵. So probably not worth it 馃槶. As to all the |
Changes Unknown when pulling b26327f on maul-esel:coveralls into * on mojombo:master*. |
So, I removed the However, update on CodeClimate: they're working on support for open-source repos, though it might be some time (reference) and they're also working on the ability to combine coverage results from cucumber and unit tests, which jekyll needs. I really think that on a long-term basis, using CodeClimate is better because having both their features combined next to each other can surely help a lot. Also, it wouldn't require using another service. So IMO the only question left is if we
|
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ | |||
source 'https://rubygems.org' | |||
gemspec | |||
gemspec |
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.
lol 鉂わ笍
I'd be OK with this! @mattr-? |
Add support for coveralls.io coverage reports
OK, it's true, those badges in the README might be a little obsession of mine. Nevertheless, it occurs more often than it should that some behaviour in the jekyll code is accidentally broken, yet no test goes 馃挜 like it should - because there is no test for that particular behaviour. In most cases it's detected before merge, but there are also cases that go into the next release and then 馃挬 goes down.
So, while it is not necessary to test every single line and a coverage of 100,000000 % is surely not necessary, some visible report on it can probably help to improve jekyll's (already awesome) testing suite. This PR adds support for coverage analysis during Travis-CI builds and loading them up to coveralls.io (provided @mojombo signs in there with his github account).
See https://coveralls.io/r/maul-esel/jekyll for the current reports of this branch.