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

neotest: coverage collection polishing #3616

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024
Merged

neotest: coverage collection polishing #3616

merged 5 commits into from
Oct 16, 2024

Conversation

AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Use calls frequency calculated by executor in the final coverage
profile for `atomic` cover mode. Support only `set` cover mode for now
due to #3587.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Don't use panic when we can use t.Fatal.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
And always use pointers for coverage block processing, dereference is
excessive in this context.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva added the neotest Neotest framework and coverage tool label Oct 15, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 15, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 7.14286% with 26 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.19%. Comparing base (a924253) to head (c1444d4).
Report is 6 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
pkg/neotest/coverage.go 4.00% 23 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
pkg/neotest/basic.go 33.33% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3616   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.19%   85.19%           
=======================================
  Files         333      333           
  Lines       39009    39022   +13     
=======================================
+ Hits        33232    33245   +13     
- Misses       4207     4210    +3     
+ Partials     1570     1567    -3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

roman-khimov
roman-khimov previously approved these changes Oct 15, 2024
Copy link
Member

@roman-khimov roman-khimov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It'd be nice to know the reason for sorting from the commit message.

@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member Author

It'd be nice to know the reason for sorting from the commit message.

I'm writing an issue about that.

@AnnaShaleva
Copy link
Member Author

OK, no issue required for sorting.

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva dismissed roman-khimov’s stale review October 15, 2024 13:41

Coverage blocks sorting behaviour is invalid.

@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva marked this pull request as draft October 15, 2024 13:43
@AnnaShaleva AnnaShaleva marked this pull request as ready for review October 15, 2024 13:47
Make the behaviour similar to the `go test` output. It's not a problem
for the `go cover` tool, but the sorted file is easier to debug and analize.

Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
@roman-khimov roman-khimov merged commit 86ed214 into master Oct 16, 2024
34 of 35 checks passed
@roman-khimov roman-khimov deleted the coverage-enh branch October 16, 2024 13:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
neotest Neotest framework and coverage tool
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants