New solution for code coverage #4011

New Issue

itamarst · 2023-04-13T13:42:27Z

itamarst commented

2023-04-13 13:42:27 +00:00

Some options:

Switch to whatever codecov is recommending now (a shell script or something).
Switch to some competitor service.
Self-hosted reports. People have hacked this up using various GitHub features, not sure if there's a CircleCI solution.

Some options: 1. Switch to whatever codecov is recommending now (a shell script or something). 2. Switch to some competitor service. 3. Self-hosted reports. People have hacked this up using various [GitHub](wiki/GitHub) features, not sure if there's a CircleCI solution.

itamarst added the

labels 2023-04-13 13:42:27 +00:00

itamarst added this to the undecided milestone 2023-04-13 13:42:27 +00:00

sajith commented

2023-04-14 19:54:29 +00:00

Option 2 was already adapted (see #3385), but not entirely, apparently. Tests that run on GitHub Actions gets their coverage data uploaded to Coveralls. There were some vaguely worded reasons to be unhappy with Codecov when that switch was made. See #3384 -- it appears that vagueness is entirely my fault, sorry!

I have not seen Codecov comments on status checks on Tahoe PRs in a long time. I also haven't been closely watching Tahoe PRs in a long time, so don't take my word for this.

Option 2 was already adapted (see #3385), but not entirely, apparently. Tests that run on GitHub Actions gets their coverage data uploaded to Coveralls. There were some vaguely worded reasons to be unhappy with Codecov when that switch was made. See #3384 -- it appears that vagueness is entirely my fault, sorry! I have not seen Codecov comments on status checks on Tahoe PRs in a long time. I also haven't been closely watching Tahoe PRs in a long time, so don't take my word for this.