Enable Codecov status API #6050
Conversation
It was disabled in 68d2020, but likely accidentally - although there was an issue for it already: encode#4594, but I think it is really nice to have feedback on how much of a diff is covered etc - you can still merge PRs, especially when it is not configured to be a required check. I've intentionally left "comment: off", since that triggers notifications (although I like it personally since it means that CI is finished and there is a coverage report).
|
In general I would be in favor of removing the config file, but configuring with Codecov's UI - this way this unnecessary info (and history) is kept out of the repo. |
|
@tomchristie turned this off. Lets ask him. |
|
I'm in favor of re-adding the status check. Note that this would not reenable the codecov comment, which might have been the original intent in disabling codecov. That said, I'd also be in favor of adding back the codecov comment. It's layout is configurable, and can be made more terse/less annoying. |
|
Right, I think the general view here is against the status check, but maybe on the comment.
@rpkilby what's feasible in the range of tasteful here? (Could you add a screenshot?) Also: Is codecov now correct? |
s/is against/is not against/ ? Here is an example comment: neomake/neomake#1989 (comment) |
|
@blueyed. No. "against" was intended. Coverage is great and all but we don't want to make it a failure condition. The comment you linked is pretty big. Is there a more minimal option. (I ask because, whilst I don't mind it personally, there is some scepticism.)
|
Docs for the comment are here. There are four sections, but I think reducing this to either just the coverage graph or just the coverage diff is enough to convey the PR's impact, without being too verbose.
You mean whether all files are covered now? It looks to be. |
|
Closing in favor of #6077. |
Ref: encode#6077 (comment) This is encode#6050 without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in encode#6077.
Ref: #6077 (comment) This is #6050 without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in #6077.
Ref: encode#6077 (comment) This is encode#6050 without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in encode#6077.
It was disabled in 68d2020, but likely accidentally - although there
was an issue for it already:
#4594, but
I think it is really nice to have feedback on how much of a diff is
covered etc - you can still merge PRs, especially when it is not
configured to be a required check.
I've intentionally left "comment: off", since that triggers
notifications (although I like it personally since it means that CI is
finished and there is a coverage report).