-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
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
Conversation
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]>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
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. |
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.
It'd be nice to know the reason for sorting from the commit message.
I'm writing an issue about that. |
0d9ad91
to
8e650c7
Compare
OK, no issue required for sorting. |
Coverage blocks sorting behaviour is invalid.
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]>
41ee43d
to
fc6c896
Compare
Signed-off-by: Anna Shaleva <[email protected]>
fc6c896
to
c1444d4
Compare
No description provided.