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

fix ci: add fetch-depth: 2 to checkout step to fix codecov #545

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2025

Conversation

matt-codecov
Copy link
Contributor

github puts a merge commit at the top of every PR. the CLI is supposed to detect that and use the actual PR head as the SHA instead of the merge commit, but because we were missing this fetch-depth argument, the local checkout only had the merge commit in it.

Legal Boilerplate

Look, I get it. The entity doing business as "Sentry" was incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2015 as Functional Software, Inc. In 2022 this entity acquired Codecov and as result Sentry is going to need some rights from me in order to utilize my contributions in this PR. So here's the deal: I retain all rights, title and interest in and to my contributions, and by keeping this boilerplate intact I confirm that Sentry can use, modify, copy, and redistribute my contributions, under Sentry's choice of terms.

@matt-codecov matt-codecov requested a review from a team February 26, 2025 21:10
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 26, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.51%. Comparing base (4de8f9e) to head (238eeaa).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #545   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.51%   88.51%           
=======================================
  Files         451      451           
  Lines       13127    13127           
  Branches     1529     1529           
=======================================
  Hits        11620    11620           
  Misses       1184     1184           
  Partials      323      323           
Flag Coverage Δ
shared-docker-uploader 88.51% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@codecov-notifications
Copy link

codecov-notifications bot commented Feb 26, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Feb 26, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #545 will create unknown performance changes

Comparing matt/fix-ci-fetch-depth (238eeaa) with main (4de8f9e)

Summary

⚠️ No benchmarks were detected in both the base of the PR and the PR.\

@matt-codecov matt-codecov added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 26, 2025
@matt-codecov matt-codecov changed the title fix fi: add fetch-depth: 2 to checkout step to fix codecov fix ci: add fetch-depth: 2 to checkout step to fix codecov Feb 26, 2025
@matt-codecov matt-codecov removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Feb 26, 2025
@matt-codecov matt-codecov added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 26, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit fd58134 Feb 26, 2025
12 checks passed
@matt-codecov matt-codecov deleted the matt/fix-ci-fetch-depth branch February 26, 2025 21:24
@Swatinem
Copy link
Contributor

We recently chatted around the concept of "adapt our product so it works with the customers setup", vs "the customer has to update their CI/codebase to work with our product".

The PR description is good, but I would like to better understand why we can’t just fix this case in the CLI, or server side for that matter?
I don’t think we can ever explain all customers that they would have to add this to their CI. So is everyone broken in some way now? Or only folks using the github merge queue?

@matt-codecov
Copy link
Contributor Author

The PR description is good, but I would like to better understand why we can’t just fix this case in the CLI, or server side for that matter?

@Swatinem good idea, i mentioned it in codecov/engineering-team#3406

I don’t think we can ever explain all customers that they would have to add this to their CI. So is everyone broken in some way now? Or only folks using the github merge queue?

i think everyone that doesn't have fetch-depth: 2 (or 0). not sure if the GHA somehow avoids this with its own checkout step or something, don't think so. but that's not new, that's always been the case

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants