-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 267
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
Adds coverage logic customized from func-e #596
Conversation
I'll take a close look at the output as it might have missed something |
coverage is fixed. I'm going to try to do a test upload to codecov.io |
cool all setup https://codecov.io/github/tetratelabs/wazero/commit/432ca4d5680c64ed97406724cb7ca36ed063e43b I'll undo the spam comments in a sec |
actually we won't get codecov comments as it is restricted to main push anyway (same as func-e) So, the main thing going on here is that this is measuring direct unit test coverage, not indirect (via integration tests like ad-hoc or spec tests). This is why the coverage is lower than 70% at the moment. However, I feel like this is honest hence made it like that. OK with doing it differently! |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #596 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 59.15%
=======================================
Files ? 74
Lines ? 16843
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 9964
Misses ? 6271
Partials ? 608 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
This adds coverage the same way as works in func-e, just that there are slightly different conventions here wrt packages to ignore. Notably, we should not run coverage using integration tests or examples as they give false positives. Signed-off-by: Adrian Cole <[email protected]>
1c27039
to
9129686
Compare
rebased |
Wondering how this can be measured for files with build tags (eg what’s the coverage look like for arm64 files on amd64 host ) |
so coverage.txt is broken down into filenames, and arm64 etc will have different filenames. codecov says reports can be merged. I'll open an issue to do this post-merge as we may need to refactor things to run in emulation to achieve that. |
This adds coverage the same way as works in func-e, just that there are
slightly different conventions here wrt packages to ignore. Notably, we
should not run coverage using integration tests or examples as they give
false positives.
Once this merges, it is ready for codecov!