-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
Code Coverage github action #202
Code Coverage github action #202
Conversation
Welcome to Codecov 🎉Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests. Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️ |
Looks like I got this action working. See https://app.codecov.io/github/lmfit/uncertainties/tree/jagerber48%2Funcertainties%3Afeature%2Fcodecov_github_action. I made the choice to only upload from the No strong opinions on which version to publish coverage for. An alternative possibility is to use flags to denote results from different runs, but I haven't totally gotten flags to work, and this strategy feels like overkill. Just mentioning it for completeness. This PR will close #195 |
I think you should be uploading the coverage for all tests and Codecov will combine them. |
Ok I’ll switch to that. I was worried about how results are interpreted if the coverage is different on different versions. But it’s no problem not to worry about that. I once saw a bug along those lines but it was due to a bug involving coverage and python <= 3.9 I think. Unless the source code branches based on OS or Python version I can’t imagine why there would be meaningful coverage differences between different tests. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks - that looks good to me
@jagerber48 OK, let's try merging this one next... |
Adjust CI github action to upload code coverage to codecov.io.