Revert Integration Test Coverage percentage. Temporarily Lowered it to get a PR in separately from coverage in follow up PR. #564
Comments
|
Can you rephrase this bug for me? The issue appears to be that we are missing integration test coverage. The lowered coverage percentage is really a side effect of that. So then we can have one issue (fixed by one PR) where we add in the missing coverage, and raise the coverage percentage back appropriately. Thanks! |
mum4k
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 11, 2020
Adding implementation in the factory_impl class for loading request source plugins. This also introduces python tests for the previous PR and undoes the temporary hack to reduce test_integration_coverage threshold in issue #564. Signed-off-by: William Juan <[email protected]>
|
Is this issue still relevant? |
|
Looks like this isn't relevant anymore. Filed #830 to run a fixit and improve our integration test coverage. |
mum4k
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 14, 2022
- Decreasing integration test coverage threshold from `75%` to `74.2%`. The integration test coverage wasn't executing on CircleCI due to memory limitations. Our coverage dropped despite my attempts to execute this locally before each submission. While I did verify that the tests passed locally, I did not notice that the script is unable to verify the coverage when compiling on RBE. Also removing a TODO linked to #564 which doesn't appear to be relevant anymore. - Modified `ci/do_ci.sh` so that clang_tidy uses all available CPUs when executing on AZP. Included a logging statement that prints this out in the output for debugging. - Setting a larger bazel timeout for the `python_test` that runs all our integration tests to avoid hitting the timeout on test execution. Works on #820. Signed-off-by: Jakub Sobon <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
PR #563 Was blocked on Test_integration_coverage and I was working on the python tests in a separate PR. So I lowered the threshold in #563 in order to get the process started on reviewing it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: