Use coveralls.io #3385

New Issue

sajith · 2020-08-18T20:59:58Z

sajith commented

2020-08-18 20:59:58 +00:00

#3384 will update coverage dependency, which will allow us to give coveralls.io a spin.

Python coverall package requires that coverage reports should be in coverage 5.0 format. Perhaps coveralls.io might work better for us than codecov.io, which we currently use.

See #3384 for some notes on why we might want to use coveralls.io.

#3384 will update [coverage](https://github.com/nedbat/coveragepy) dependency, which will allow us to give [coveralls.io](https://coveralls.io) a spin. Python [coverall](https://github.com/coveralls-clients/coveralls-python) package requires that coverage reports should be in coverage 5.0 format. Perhaps coveralls.io might work better for us than [codecov.io](https://codecov.io), which we currently use. See #3384 for some notes on why we might want to use coveralls.io.

sajith added the

labels 2020-08-18 20:59:58 +00:00

sajith added this to the undecided milestone 2020-08-18 20:59:58 +00:00

sajith self-assigned this 2020-08-19 15:33:27 +00:00

exarkun commented

2020-12-29 17:52:24 +00:00

Duplicate of https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2389

Duplicate of <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2389>

exarkun added the

duplicate

label 2020-12-29 17:52:24 +00:00

exarkun closed this issue

2020-12-29 17:52:24 +00:00

exarkun commented

2021-01-05 20:56:17 +00:00

I read that other ticket backwards. This wasn't a duplicate at all.

exarkun removed the

duplicate

label 2021-01-05 20:56:17 +00:00

exarkun reopened this issue

2021-01-05 20:56:17 +00:00

exarkun commented

2021-01-05 21:03:13 +00:00

Background: coveralls does not readily support collecting coverage information from more than one CI provider.

After discussion between many of the currently active developers we decided that collecting coverage on Windows and macOS and not Linux is the most useful configuration we can get out of coveralls. We also decided this is better than the current state of affairs based on codecov. Supposedly codecov can collect coverage from multiple providers but in reality it often generates reports no one can make any sense of.

Therefore, we'll turn off codecov and turn on Coveralls for Windows and macOS on GitHub Actions.

We might even consider adding one Linux job to GitHub Actions at some point to get at least some Linux coverage in the reports.

Background: coveralls does not readily support collecting coverage information from more than one CI provider. After discussion between many of the currently active developers we decided that collecting coverage on Windows and macOS and *not* Linux is the most useful configuration we can get out of coveralls. We also decided this is better than the current state of affairs based on codecov. Supposedly codecov can collect coverage from multiple providers but in reality it often generates reports no one can make any sense of. Therefore, we'll turn off codecov and turn on Coveralls for Windows and macOS on [GitHub](wiki/GitHub) Actions. We might even consider adding one Linux job to [GitHub](wiki/GitHub) Actions at some point to get at least some Linux coverage in the reports.

GitHub <noreply@github.com> commented

2021-02-12 18:28:13 +00:00

In a3be55a/trunk:

Merge pull request #956 from LeastAuthority/3385.coveralls-for-coverage-reports

Use coveralls for coverage reports

Fixes: ticket:3385

In [a3be55a/trunk](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/commit/a3be55a12946628ec753e1581bb140744f084e3c): ``` Merge pull request #956 from LeastAuthority/3385.coveralls-for-coverage-reports Use coveralls for coverage reports Fixes: ticket:3385 ```

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2021-02-12 18:28:13 +00:00

GitHub <noreply@github.com> closed this issue

2021-02-12 18:28:13 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.