Skip to content
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

Allow up to a 0.01% drop in coverage #30

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 13, 2017
Merged

Conversation

zware
Copy link
Member

@zware zware commented Feb 11, 2017

I'm not sure that this is correct, but we'll see what codecov thinks. It does pass the validator, but I couldn't get the validator to fail at all with well-formed YAML...

@codecov
Copy link

@codecov codecov bot commented Feb 11, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #30 into master will decrease coverage by -0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #30      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.37%   82.37%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1427     1427              
  Lines      350948   350948              
==========================================
- Hits       289088   289085       -3     
- Misses      61860    61863       +3

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e7ffb99...15b5a34. Read the comment docs.

@nedbat
Copy link
Member

@nedbat nedbat commented Feb 11, 2017

I'm curious what the reasoning for this is?

@terryjreedy
Copy link
Member

@terryjreedy terryjreedy commented Feb 11, 2017

Several pull request threads, such as this one, have gotten noisy but irrelevant 'coverage decreased by .01 %' warnings. I am puzzled that this patch to the .yml driver should change code coverage at all. If the change shrinks the message somehow, I am in favor of it.

@zware
Copy link
Member Author

@zware zware commented Feb 12, 2017

In my rush to get this submitted this morning, I failed to reference python/core-workflow#21, which inspired this.

@nedbat, the object here is to avoid having Codecov "fail" its check due to random noise in the coverage results. This is obviously not the ideal solution; ideally, we should find and squash the noise. This is a good way to make the coverage check more useful in the short term, though.

@terryjreedy, I don't think this will affect the messages left by codecov, but will affect the status in the 'merge' box at the bottom of the PR (note the difference between this one and #20).

Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

I saw the coverage complaining on multiple PR whereas the change couldn't have any effect of the coverage, so I'm +1 on this change ;-)

@ambv ambv merged commit 649a7ca into python:master Feb 13, 2017
3 checks passed
@zware zware deleted the more_lenient_codecov branch Feb 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants