Skip to content

Add minimal codecov comment #6077

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 10, 2018
Merged

Conversation

rpkilby
Copy link
Member

@rpkilby rpkilby commented Jul 10, 2018

From #6050 - testing a minimal comment layout. Not sure if codecov will pick up on the change and add its comment.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jul 10, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #6077 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@rpkilby
Copy link
Member Author

rpkilby commented Jul 10, 2018

cc @carltongibson, @tomchristie - thoughts? I think it looks good. It's enough of an overview, while remaining fairly terse.

@carltongibson
Copy link
Collaborator

OK. This looks good to me.

The link goes straight to the full report which is handy.

We can run with it for a while to see how it goes. We can always adjust, and maybe add the status check later if that seems like a good idea then.

Thanks @rpkilby.

@tomchristie
Copy link
Member

Bit meh, personally. 😇

@carltongibson
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, we know that (by now). 😃

My thought here is to give this minimal comment a run (for say the summer) and see what we think.
If we (i.e. you 😉) still don't like it in September we can turn it off again.

I'm going to merge it on that basis. 🙂

@carltongibson carltongibson merged commit 987d73a into encode:master Jul 10, 2018
@carltongibson carltongibson added this to the 3.9 Release milestone Jul 10, 2018
@@ -4,4 +4,5 @@ coverage:
patch: false
changes: false
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why not enable the status?
At least patch and changes would be useful.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Jul 10, 2018

Thanks!
I'd still say that the statuses (patch and changes) would be useful (they then go directly to e.g. the diff report).

@carltongibson
Copy link
Collaborator

carltongibson commented Jul 10, 2018

Yes, we know that (by now). 😃

😃

Lets give this a run for a while and see how it goes. If it goes well, and is seen to be helpful, we can think about expanding.

(This being a compromise position between those who want lots of codecov and those who want none.)

@rpkilby rpkilby deleted the codecov-comment branch July 10, 2018 13:44
@tomchristie
Copy link
Member

tomchristie commented Jul 10, 2018

(This being a compromise position between those who want lots of codecov and those who want none.)

I don't mind having a line of code coverage. It's all noise that codecov uses to display it...

screen shot 2018-07-10 at 14 45 05

Just "diff coverage 100%" would be fine. 🙃

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Jul 10, 2018

@tomchristie
You would get that with the status(es).
I suggest enabling them instead of the comment - or at least additionally.
#6050 was meant to only enabled them, since it is less intrusive.

@carltongibson
Copy link
Collaborator

But the status fails the PR if coverage drops right?

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Jul 10, 2018

You will see an "x" in the overall status, e.g. PR lists, yes.
But that does not have to be a required check (and is not by default) - this can be changed with the branch protection in Github settings.

We could including "project" status to not cause an "x" for when it drops.

For "patch" and "changes" I think it is good to cause an "x".

@carltongibson
Copy link
Collaborator

Ugh... I have a feeling of déjà vu.

blueyed added a commit to blueyed/django-rest-framework that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2018
Ref: encode#6077 (comment)

This is encode#6050
without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in
encode#6077.
@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

blueyed commented Jul 10, 2018

Yes, I am repeating myself.
Created #6080 now.

carltongibson pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 10, 2018
Ref: #6077 (comment)

This is #6050
without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in
#6077.
pchiquet pushed a commit to pchiquet/django-rest-framework that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2020
pchiquet pushed a commit to pchiquet/django-rest-framework that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2020
Ref: encode#6077 (comment)

This is encode#6050
without the project status, and fixes/improves the comment added in
encode#6077.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy