Conversation
b72f0ad to
b3731b3
Compare
|
Total Coverage: 73.30% Coverage Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
alexanderjophus
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, just curious about one thing
|
|
||
| - uses: actions/upload-artifact@v2 | ||
| with: | ||
| name: coverage.out |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question: What does this do? I thought jobs ran sequentially, so adding coverage here wouldn't do anything as there's no coverage.out yet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Coverage.out is produced by 'make test'
|
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Total Coverage: 73.37% Coverage Report
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We've made determinations in the past not to use test coverage as a metric. cc/ @marccampbell |
|
That's fair. What I'd really like to have in this is "these are the lines you added, and this is which of those lines are covered" but that might take some actual work to implement. |
|
Agreeing with @erquhart. I'd like to not include this. In the end, it's not important that every line of code have test coverage, it's important that workflows do. Unfortunately, mapping this to "lines of code" is that best we can do today, but that comes with downsides we'd like to avoid (at least for now). I like the goal here (give more data to the reviewer about the quality of the change). But is there a way we can do it without reporting on "lines of code covered"? |
No description provided.