You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to notifications@libcloud.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/03/15 07:54:38 UTC

[GitHub] [libcloud] Germandrummer92 commented on pull request #1666: Fix codecov

Germandrummer92 commented on pull request #1666:
URL: https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/1666#issuecomment-1067672108


   Huh. That is a very good point. I don't think I have seen coverage used that way before, but you learn something new every day.  🙂 
   
   Then two questions however: 
   
   1) would it make sense to split the test package coverage + production code coverage into two numbers? Both would represent the intention better (one is to find "dead" test code) one to really check how well the production code is tested.
   2) Why I started with this anyways: The Codecov comment on [1664](https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/1664#issuecomment-1066069396) looks to me like the coverage of `test_connection.py` and `test_local.py` went down, however on the codecov page itself it doesn't show those files as having [Coverage Changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/libcloud/compare/1664/changes), am I misunderstanding the table from codecov?


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscribe@libcloud.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org