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

Do coverage testing only on ubuntu #23

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 23, 2024
Merged

Conversation

benegee
Copy link
Collaborator

@benegee benegee commented Jul 23, 2024

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 23, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (a827ab6) to head (1bdce06).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #23   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            1         1           
  Lines            4         4           
=========================================
  Hits             4         4           

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

Copy link
Member

@tristanmontoya tristanmontoya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@benegee benegee merged commit 25592b6 into main Jul 23, 2024
14 checks passed
@benegee benegee deleted the bg/coverage-only-on-ubuntu branch July 23, 2024 20:31
uses: julia-actions/julia-processcoverage@v1

- name: Upload coverage data (Codecov)
if: ${{ matrix.os == 'ubuntu-latest' }}
uses: codecov/codecov-action@v4
with:
files: lcov.info
token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }}

- name: Upload coverage data (Coveralls)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will not be enough when you split the workload into multiple CI jobs like we do in Trixi.jl. Then, you would need to do something like we do over there. But this solution is fine for now

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I will try to keep this in mind.
Thanks for your attention here!

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