You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems most of the Coveralls test fails with a decreased coverage of 0.0%.
However, when I look at the Coveralls details, I do not notice any decreased coverage.
Maybe this is a rounding error?
Yes, I hate Coveralls being so touchy by default, and I had no idea it could be adjusted! Also, while I like decent coverage, I'm not super bothered about it going up or down a bit when it's over 90% anyway. I'd be happy to have 90% as the threshold and then stop worrying about it. Unfortunately I don't have the required access to set this, as I'm not an owner of the rubyzip repo - maybe @jdleesmiller could set the threshold? Thanks!
Yes, I hate Coveralls being so touchy by default, and I had no idea it could be adjusted! Also, while I like decent coverage, I'm not super bothered about it going up or down a bit when it's over 90% anyway. I'd be happy to have 90% as the threshold and then stop worrying about it. Unfortunately I don't have the required access to set this, as I'm not an owner of the rubyzip repo - maybe @jdleesmiller could set the threshold? Thanks!
Originally posted by @hainesr in #488 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: