Adding coverage task configuration #174
Conversation
|
The intent here is to add the task to do coverage verification, but not necessarily tie it to the check lifecycle. That may be a decision best left up to the build file author on whether or not they want it tied to the lifecycle, or to call it explicitly. |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #174 +/- ##
=============================================
- Coverage 84.06% 73.87% -10.19%
- Complexity 43 46 +3
=============================================
Files 1 4 +3
Lines 182 245 +63
Branches 24 28 +4
=============================================
+ Hits 153 181 +28
- Misses 21 54 +33
- Partials 8 10 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Any timeline for the release of this change by chance? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, lost track of this. Have you been able to test it out? @alexeisele
| assert sourceDirectories.contains(project.file("src/debug/$it")) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // TODO: Validate Rules |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this something you want to do?
| - Task `jacocoTestCoverageVerification<Flavor><BuildType>` | ||
| - Depends on the `jacocoTestReport<Flavor><BuildType>` task | ||
| - Verifies that your code coverage limits have not been violated | ||
| - Must be manually specified in your gradle targets to execute |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about?
| - Must be manually specified in your gradle targets to execute | |
| - Must be manually invoked |
| - Task `jacocoTestCoverageVerification` | ||
| - Depends on the `jacocoTestReport` task | ||
| - Verifies that your code coverage limits have not been violated | ||
| - Must be manually specified in your gradle targets to execute |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| - Must be manually specified in your gradle targets to execute | |
| - Must be manually invoked |
| failOnViolation = true | ||
| rule { | ||
| enabled = true | ||
| element = "BUNDLE" |
|
@vanniktech thanks for following up! Have not been able to test as my project is behind a corporate proxy, however if I have time this weekend I will try on a separate test protect. |
|
@mattinger has there been any update on this? |
|
@alexeisele @mattinger Any update? |
|
@mattinger want to resolve the conflicts? |
|
I'm closing this issue due to inactivity. If you have any further input on the issue, don't hesitate to reopen this issue or post a new one. |
No description provided.