-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
Update coverage workflow, report separate unit vs integration #1509
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
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #1509 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 78.64% 90.52% +11.88%
===========================================
Files 37 25 -12
Lines 2777 2460 -317
Branches 517 456 -61
===========================================
+ Hits 2184 2227 +43
+ Misses 510 148 -362
- Partials 83 85 +2
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
…WithoutBorders/pynwb into update_coverage_action
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.
Looks good to me. Just to clarify, do I understand the changes correctly that with this we should get 3 coverage reports: 1) unit only, 2) integration tests only, 3) combined coverage?
Motivation
Our code coverage workflow runs only unit tests, however, the coverage percentage considers all lines of code in pynwb, including the IO module code, which is not run by the unit tests.
This PR changes the coverage workflow to run the unit tests and integration tests separately, adds flags "unit" and "integration" to each codecov upload so that we can distinguish them and get separate coverage percentages, and also updates the rest of the workflow to newer versions of Actions.
Checklist
flake8
from the source directory.