-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
[Code Coverage] Codecov.io reports appear to be mostly broken #7015
Comments
@unlikelyzero Could you explain the process of generating a coverage report? Reason for asking is that this PR is probably better to be done with someone that has CI and codecov permissions. |
@evenstensberg I'm not ready to blame codecov.io quite yet. It's possible that we're generating the coverage incorreclty and codecov.io is just the bearer of bad news. Please see this documention update and provide feedback https://github.com/nasa/openmct/pull/7027/files |
Try with:
|
@unlikelyzero okay, I'll have a look at the build. |
Summary
I noticed that we had a codecov.io report for release/3.0.0 which had the following calculations:
e2e-stable
flage2e-full
flagunit
flagHow is it possible that our total is 48% but the e2e-stable tests cover 57%?
I switched back to 'master' and noticed something our lowest coverage was for 'plot/plugins/mctPlot.vue'. We which shouldn't near-zero (0.27%) as this area is heavily exercised in our e2e suites.
Opening the
plot/plugins/MctPlot.vue
revealed that the two lines which were covered appeared to be randomly distributedWe'll likely need to do a deeper investigation into why the code coverage is mostly inaccurate.
Probable causes:
npm run start:coverage
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: