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

Add codacy/codacy-coverage-reporter-action action to tests.yml #875

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 29, 2024

Conversation

rvhonorato
Copy link
Member

@rvhonorato rvhonorato commented Apr 24, 2024

This add integration with Codacy - https://app.codacy.com/gh/haddocking/haddock3/, in line with the other tools from the group

@rvhonorato rvhonorato added the CI / repository Continuous integration or repository organization label Apr 24, 2024
@rvhonorato rvhonorato self-assigned this Apr 24, 2024
Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Apr 24, 2024

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
Report missing for 56ca74a1
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (56ca74a) Report Missing Report Missing Report Missing
Head commit (98f3fc7) 12214 9827 80.46%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#875) 0 0 ∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy will stop sending the deprecated coverage status from June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Footnotes

  1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.

@rvhonorato rvhonorato marked this pull request as ready for review April 24, 2024 16:03
@mgiulini
Copy link
Contributor

I think these checks are way too strict..I would add this action later on in the project when the production version is stable/published and the development slows down

@rvhonorato
Copy link
Member Author

rvhonorato commented Apr 25, 2024

There are no checks, it just display things over there and this is needed for FAIRness

*the checks are configured in the repository settings - none are configured right now, this PR just just sends the coverage report to codacy. If you don't want to send the coverage reports, the repository is still linked anyway to check for code quality https://app.codacy.com/gh/haddocking/haddock3/

@mgiulini
Copy link
Contributor

There are no checks, it just display things over there and this is needed for FAIRness

*the checks are configured in the repository settings - none are configured right now, this PR just just sends the coverage report to codacy. If you don't want to send the coverage reports, the repository is still linked anyway to check for code quality https://app.codacy.com/gh/haddocking/haddock3/

ok, then can't it be hidden from the actions report? I really hate seeing failed actions (see #862) for reasons like this https://app.codacy.com/gh/haddocking/haddock3/pull-requests/862/issues#issue-da28e38929afc9695f2cd4cb38d5e415

@rvhonorato
Copy link
Member Author

That's a configuration in codacy, has nothing to do with this PR

@rvhonorato rvhonorato changed the title add codacy integration Add codacy/codacy-coverage-reporter-action action to tests.yml Apr 25, 2024
@rvhonorato rvhonorato merged commit 594767b into main Apr 29, 2024
6 checks passed
@rvhonorato rvhonorato deleted the codacy branch April 29, 2024 09:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CI / repository Continuous integration or repository organization
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants