Skip to content

SG-43838 Make Codecov checks advisory with 80% threshold#1109

Merged
stevelittlefish merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
sg-43838/improve-codecov-config
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

SG-43838 Make Codecov checks advisory with 80% threshold#1109
stevelittlefish merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
sg-43838/improve-codecov-config

Conversation

@stevelittlefish

@stevelittlefish stevelittlefish commented Jun 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Sets informational: true on both project and patch Codecov checks so CI is never blocked by coverage warnings
  • Sets target: 80% on both checks — Codecov only annotates when coverage genuinely drops below 80%
  • Adds a threshold: 1% on the project check to suppress noise from small changes

Context

The previous configuration had no coverage.status section, so Codecov was using its defaults: patch check requires 100% of new lines covered, and failures block CI. This meant a PR adding 3 lines of code with 1 uncovered line would fail CI with a 66% coverage warning — despite the uncovered line being untestable or trivial.

With these changes:

  • Coverage is visible and reported in PR comments as before
  • CI is never red due to coverage alone
  • Codecov will still flag (advisorily) if coverage drops meaningfully below 80%

Test plan

  • Verify Codecov status checks show as informational (green) on this PR regardless of patch coverage
  • Confirm Codecov PR comment still reports coverage data

Jira: SG-43838

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Coverage checks now use informational: true so CI is never blocked
by coverage. Patch and project checks only flag below 80% coverage,
with a 1% threshold on project to suppress noise from small changes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 24, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.46%. Comparing base (c6204cc) to head (67aa36f).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1109   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.45%   79.46%           
=======================================
  Files         206      206           
  Lines       21007    21007           
=======================================
+ Hits        16692    16694    +2     
+ Misses       4315     4313    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
Linux 78.93% <ø> (ø)
Python-3.10 79.28% <ø> (ø)
Python-3.11 79.18% <ø> (ø)
Python-3.13 79.18% <ø> (ø)
Python-3.9 79.25% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
Windows 78.97% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
macOS 78.94% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Pull request overview

Updates the repository’s Codecov configuration so coverage status checks become advisory (non-blocking) while still highlighting meaningful coverage drops below an 80% target.

Changes:

  • Adds coverage.status configuration for both project and patch checks.
  • Marks both checks as informational: true so coverage warnings don’t fail CI.
  • Sets target: 80% for both checks and adds threshold: 1% for project coverage to reduce noise from small fluctuations.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@stevelittlefish stevelittlefish marked this pull request as ready for review July 7, 2026 11:32
@stevelittlefish stevelittlefish merged commit 0df22bc into master Jul 7, 2026
24 checks passed
@stevelittlefish stevelittlefish deleted the sg-43838/improve-codecov-config branch July 7, 2026 11:32
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.

4 participants