-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 155
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
codecov integration #525
codecov integration #525
Conversation
Exploring with the new travis build stages feature too
@tomkralidis |
@ricardogsilva I've enabled codecov is integration for pycsw. Do we need to close/reopen this PR? |
Reopening, travis ci running. |
@tomkralidis the work is not finished yet. I'll ask for review when it seems ready to merge |
Codecov is finding files named coverage.xsd and it thinks these are coverage files. Disabling directory crawling might do the trick
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #525 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 56.04%
=========================================
Files ? 29
Lines ? 6320
Branches ? 1338
=========================================
Hits ? 3542
Misses ? 2400
Partials ? 378
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
@tomkralidis @kalxas As you can see (from this PR) we will now have a codecov bot analyzing PRs and indicating code coverage status. In this case, since it is the first time that we are adding codecov it cannot compute the difference between the PR and the master branch, and that is why it is showing a failed check. Other codecov functionality is not working very well yet, due to the same problem. This will be fixed once we merge codecov integration into master. Later on we can configure the codecov settings by adding a I think I won't be adding a coverage badge to the Another thing implemented in this PR is usage of Travis' build stages. If you check Travis you'll see that we now have a |
cc @kalxas Thanks @ricardogsilva. Should we keep with 70% code coverage with the goal to improve or lower our baseline? Thoughts? I like the build stages and the early failure approach the provide. +1 for merge pending decision on coverage threshold value. |
Thanks @ricardogsilva |
Let's discuss the threshold for green coverage on the next dev meeting |
+1. Added to draft agenda. |
FYI, now that is has been merged you can go to https://codecov.io/gh/geopython/pycsw and see a detailed view on the coverage of each file, with line by line visualization of code covered (green), missed (red) and partially covered (yellow) |
* master: Do not silence exceptions on custom plugins (geopython#487) (geopython#527) decouple requirements files in lieu of assembling via tox config (geopython#521) (geopython#497) from mock import Mock as MagicMock codecov integration (geopython#525) fixed code review issues version is now stored on a single file, VERSION.txt removed python 2.6 from the tox settings fix ref (geopython#514) Fixed harvesting WMS. calling undefined function (geopython#518)
Overview
This PR brings integration with the codecov service.
The general idea is that our CI service will run the tests with
coverage.py
and afterwards upload coverage results to codecov. This involves running parallel coverage and then combining everything in the end.It will be using the new multi-stage capabilities in Travis (which are awesome by the way).
Related Issue / Discussion
See #511
Additional Information
Contributions and Licensing
(as per https://github.com/geopython/pycsw/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst#contributions-and-licensing)