You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hudi.apache.org by leesf <le...@gmail.com> on 2020/03/01 03:41:45 UTC
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Great job, thanks for your work.
Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> Good job! thanks for adding.
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ram,
> >
> > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vino
> >
> > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> >
> > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code quality over
> time!
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > Diff 1347 <https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi/pull/1347> was
> > > merged
> > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code coverage of
> > hudi
> > > > in general and also provides insights into differential coverage
> during
> > > > peer reviews.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you might see
> some
> > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios here,
> > > >
> > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence the code
> > > coverage
> > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just have to
> rebase
> > to
> > > > latest master.
> > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one diff (#1350)
> > > where
> > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't happen. Could
> > have
> > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be monitoring
> upcoming
> > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists. Please
> ping
> > me
> > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding code
> coverage.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ram
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> -Sivabalan
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam <mr...@uber.com.INVALID>.
Hi Kennneth,
From what I understand, codecov does not need any specific access
permissions to work on public repositories. At least for uploading the
coverage reports and getting comments on the PRs, there is nothing specific
I had to except for adding an upload script to the final step of CI.
I don't know if other repositories have different ACLs. Only thing codecov
needs is the ability for it to comment on PRs. I believe anyone can comment
on public repository PRs. So this should not be a concern.
Only step I had to do to get the reports running in codecov is to add a
single line in travis.yml to upload coverage reports to codecov via a bash
script (provided by codecov).
I took the inspiration to add codecov by looking at github.com/apache/dubbo.
Seems like they are using it for longer than us. You might want to check
with them too, if you have specific questions.
-Ram
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:49 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ram, could you share how you set it up? :)
> Seems github has a deeper integration with codecov now?
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:37 PM Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Question from a lurker: There are many many tickets like
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_browse_INFRA-2D19669&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=Qvy_TtXVxEsRjDc1X3ml2CPydiFA2GoVwKvXGE-0e3o&e=
> that say
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__codecov.io&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=3x1ZoNK5oubPPv7oLPpvB9hy4nS1vimKllGlzzBExY4&e=
> > cannot be use. Have you configured it in a different way? (asking
> because I
> > want to use it)
> >
> > Kenn
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:58 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Got it .. Thanks for confirming~!
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the
> > > report
> > > > from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI
> > > > passed" for some reason.
> > > > [image: image.png]
> > > > Working with the codecov community
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098_5-3Fu-3Dramachandranms&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=BvOxW-T3Y0oqoiQF4-bplKhYipricNj9pE6FnSWRR3M&s=XeB6ATk-1pewKadUa4V5ifB5AOX4zg8qKbZ8_FS4MWg&e=
> > > >
> > > > figure this out.
> > > >
> > > > -Ram
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old
> > ones
> > > >> are
> > > >> not okay even with rebasing
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > >> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
> > > >> > observation so far.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
> > > >> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No
> > coverage
> > > >> > reports (no comment from codecov bot)
> > > >> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No
> > > coverage
> > > >> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported
> > > >> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once
> all
> > > old
> > > >> PRs
> > > >> > are flushed out.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Ram
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vinoth@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things
> > > >> reliably
> > > >> > > working..
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the
> > forked
> > > >> > branch
> > > >> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > >> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting
> > zero
> > > >> > > coverage
> > > >> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage.
> Opened
> > a
> > > >> > ticket
> > > >> > > > with codecov
> > > >> > > > <
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > today to understand this issue better.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage
> > for
> > > >> > > master.
> > > >> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to
> > current
> > > >> > master
> > > >> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master
> which
> > > >> > doesn't
> > > >> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are
> > > >> rebased.
> > > >> > > It
> > > >> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade
> > > away
> > > >> > > > eventually on new PRs.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -Ram
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> > > >> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > -Sudha
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <
> > > >> yanghua1127@gmail.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ram,
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage
> > > clear.
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > >> > > > > > > > Vino
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六
> > > 上午4:39写道：
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the
> code
> > > >> > quality
> > > >> > > > over
> > > >> > > > > > > time!
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
> > > >> > Subramaniam
> > > >> > > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > > >> > > > > > was
> > > >> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility
> into
> > > code
> > > >> > > > coverage
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > > > hudi
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into
> > > differential
> > > >> > > > coverage
> > > >> > > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting
> integrated,
> > > you
> > > >> > > might
> > > >> > > > > see
> > > >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2
> > scenarios
> > > >> > here,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and
> > > hence
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > code
> > > >> > > > > > > > > coverage
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you
> > > just
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > rebase
> > > >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > latest master.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three
> was
> > > one
> > > >> > diff
> > > >> > > > > > (#1350)
> > > >> > > > > > > > > where
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general
> > shouldn't
> > > >> > > happen.
> > > >> > > > > > Could
> > > >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will
> be
> > > >> > > monitoring
> > > >> > > > > > > upcoming
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem
> > > >> persists.
> > > >> > > > Please
> > > >> > > > > > > ping
> > > >> > > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns
> > > regarding
> > > >> > code
> > > >> > > > > > > coverage.
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > > > > > Ram
> > > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > -Sivabalan
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>.
Ram, could you share how you set it up? :)
Seems github has a deeper integration with codecov now?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:37 PM Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> Question from a lurker: There are many many tickets like
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19669 that say codecov.io
> cannot be use. Have you configured it in a different way? (asking because I
> want to use it)
>
> Kenn
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:58 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Got it .. Thanks for confirming~!
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the
> > report
> > > from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI
> > > passed" for some reason.
> > > [image: image.png]
> > > Working with the codecov community
> > > <
> >
> https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098/5?u=ramachandranms
> > >
> > > figure this out.
> > >
> > > -Ram
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old
> ones
> > >> are
> > >> not okay even with rebasing
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > >> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
> > >> > observation so far.
> > >> >
> > >> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
> > >> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No
> coverage
> > >> > reports (no comment from codecov bot)
> > >> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No
> > coverage
> > >> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported
> > >> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
> > >> >
> > >> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all
> > old
> > >> PRs
> > >> > are flushed out.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Ram
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things
> > >> reliably
> > >> > > working..
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the
> forked
> > >> > branch
> > >> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > >> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting
> zero
> > >> > > coverage
> > >> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened
> a
> > >> > ticket
> > >> > > > with codecov
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > today to understand this issue better.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage
> for
> > >> > > master.
> > >> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to
> current
> > >> > master
> > >> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which
> > >> > doesn't
> > >> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are
> > >> rebased.
> > >> > > It
> > >> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade
> > away
> > >> > > > eventually on new PRs.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -Ram
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> > >> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -Sudha
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <
> > >> yanghua1127@gmail.com
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hi Ram,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage
> > clear.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Best,
> > >> > > > > > > > Vino
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六
> > 上午4:39写道：
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code
> > >> > quality
> > >> > > > over
> > >> > > > > > > time!
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
> > >> > Subramaniam
> > >> > > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > >> > > > > > was
> > >> > > > > > > > > merged
> > >> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into
> > code
> > >> > > > coverage
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > > > hudi
> > >> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into
> > differential
> > >> > > > coverage
> > >> > > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated,
> > you
> > >> > > might
> > >> > > > > see
> > >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2
> scenarios
> > >> > here,
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and
> > hence
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > code
> > >> > > > > > > > > coverage
> > >> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you
> > just
> > >> > have
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > rebase
> > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > latest master.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was
> > one
> > >> > diff
> > >> > > > > > (#1350)
> > >> > > > > > > > > where
> > >> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general
> shouldn't
> > >> > > happen.
> > >> > > > > > Could
> > >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
> > >> > > monitoring
> > >> > > > > > > upcoming
> > >> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem
> > >> persists.
> > >> > > > Please
> > >> > > > > > > ping
> > >> > > > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns
> > regarding
> > >> > code
> > >> > > > > > > coverage.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Ram
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > > > -Sivabalan
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>.
Question from a lurker: There are many many tickets like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19669 that say codecov.io
cannot be use. Have you configured it in a different way? (asking because I
want to use it)
Kenn
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:58 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Got it .. Thanks for confirming~!
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the
> report
> > from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI
> > passed" for some reason.
> > [image: image.png]
> > Working with the codecov community
> > <
> https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098/5?u=ramachandranms
> >
> > figure this out.
> >
> > -Ram
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old ones
> >> are
> >> not okay even with rebasing
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> >> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
> >> > observation so far.
> >> >
> >> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
> >> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
> >> >
> >> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage
> >> > reports (no comment from codecov bot)
> >> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No
> coverage
> >> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported
> >> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
> >> >
> >> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all
> old
> >> PRs
> >> > are flushed out.
> >> >
> >> > -Ram
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things
> >> reliably
> >> > > working..
> >> > >
> >> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked
> >> > branch
> >> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
> >> > >
> >> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> >> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero
> >> > > coverage
> >> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a
> >> > ticket
> >> > > > with codecov
> >> > > > <
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > today to understand this issue better.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for
> >> > > master.
> >> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current
> >> > master
> >> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which
> >> > doesn't
> >> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are
> >> rebased.
> >> > > It
> >> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade
> away
> >> > > > eventually on new PRs.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Ram
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> >> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Sudha
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <
> >> yanghua1127@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hi Ram,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage
> clear.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > > > > Vino
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六
> 上午4:39写道：
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code
> >> > quality
> >> > > > over
> >> > > > > > > time!
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
> >> > Subramaniam
> >> > > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> >> > > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > > merged
> >> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into
> code
> >> > > > coverage
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > hudi
> >> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into
> differential
> >> > > > coverage
> >> > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated,
> you
> >> > > might
> >> > > > > see
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios
> >> > here,
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and
> hence
> >> > the
> >> > > > code
> >> > > > > > > > > coverage
> >> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you
> just
> >> > have
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > rebase
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > latest master.
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was
> one
> >> > diff
> >> > > > > > (#1350)
> >> > > > > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't
> >> > > happen.
> >> > > > > > Could
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
> >> > > monitoring
> >> > > > > > > upcoming
> >> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem
> >> persists.
> >> > > > Please
> >> > > > > > > ping
> >> > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns
> regarding
> >> > code
> >> > > > > > > coverage.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > Ram
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > > -Sivabalan
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>.
Got it .. Thanks for confirming~!
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
<mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the report
> from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI
> passed" for some reason.
> [image: image.png]
> Working with the codecov community
> <https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098/5?u=ramachandranms>
> figure this out.
>
> -Ram
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old ones
>> are
>> not okay even with rebasing
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
>> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
>> > observation so far.
>> >
>> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
>> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
>> >
>> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage
>> > reports (no comment from codecov bot)
>> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No coverage
>> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported
>> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
>> >
>> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all old
>> PRs
>> > are flushed out.
>> >
>> > -Ram
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things
>> reliably
>> > > working..
>> > >
>> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked
>> > branch
>> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
>> > >
>> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
>> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
>> > > >
>> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero
>> > > coverage
>> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a
>> > ticket
>> > > > with codecov
>> > > > <
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
>> > > > >
>> > > > today to understand this issue better.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for
>> > > master.
>> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current
>> > master
>> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which
>> > doesn't
>> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are
>> rebased.
>> > > It
>> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
>> > > > eventually on new PRs.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Ram
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <
>> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Sudha
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <
>> yanghua1127@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hi Ram,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > Vino
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code
>> > quality
>> > > > over
>> > > > > > > time!
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
>> > Subramaniam
>> > > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
>> > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > merged
>> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code
>> > > > coverage
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > hudi
>> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential
>> > > > coverage
>> > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you
>> > > might
>> > > > > see
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios
>> > here,
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence
>> > the
>> > > > code
>> > > > > > > > > coverage
>> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just
>> > have
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > rebase
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > latest master.
>> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one
>> > diff
>> > > > > > (#1350)
>> > > > > > > > > where
>> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't
>> > > happen.
>> > > > > > Could
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
>> > > monitoring
>> > > > > > > upcoming
>> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem
>> persists.
>> > > > Please
>> > > > > > > ping
>> > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding
>> > code
>> > > > > > > coverage.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > Ram
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > -Sivabalan
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam <mr...@uber.com.INVALID>.
Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the report
from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI
passed" for some reason.
[image: image.png]
Working with the codecov community
<https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098/5?u=ramachandranms>
figure this out.
-Ram
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old ones are
> not okay even with rebasing
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
> > observation so far.
> >
> > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
> > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
> >
> > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage
> > reports (no comment from codecov bot)
> > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No coverage
> > for PR and hence negative 67% reported
> > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
> >
> > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all old
> PRs
> > are flushed out.
> >
> > -Ram
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things
> reliably
> > > working..
> > >
> > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked
> > branch
> > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
> > >
> > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> > > >
> > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero
> > > coverage
> > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a
> > ticket
> > > > with codecov
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> > > > >
> > > > today to understand this issue better.
> > > >
> > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for
> > > master.
> > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current
> > master
> > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which
> > doesn't
> > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are
> rebased.
> > > It
> > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
> > > > eventually on new PRs.
> > > >
> > > > -Ram
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <
> bhavanisudhas@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> > > > >
> > > > > -Sudha
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <
> yanghua1127@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Ram,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Vino
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code
> > quality
> > > > over
> > > > > > > time!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
> > Subramaniam
> > > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code
> > > > coverage
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > hudi
> > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential
> > > > coverage
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you
> > > might
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios
> > here,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > > rebase
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > latest master.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one
> > diff
> > > > > > (#1350)
> > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't
> > > happen.
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
> > > monitoring
> > > > > > > upcoming
> > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem
> persists.
> > > > Please
> > > > > > > ping
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding
> > code
> > > > > > > coverage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > -Sivabalan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>.
Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old ones are
not okay even with rebasing
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
<mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
> observation so far.
>
> *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
> *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
>
> 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage
> reports (no comment from codecov bot)
> 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No coverage
> for PR and hence negative 67% reported
> 3. new PR - coverage properly reported
>
> So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all old PRs
> are flushed out.
>
> -Ram
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things reliably
> > working..
> >
> > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked
> branch
> > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
> >
> > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> > >
> > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero
> > coverage
> > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a
> ticket
> > > with codecov
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> > > >
> > > today to understand this issue better.
> > >
> > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for
> > master.
> > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current
> master
> > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which
> doesn't
> > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are rebased.
> > It
> > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
> > > eventually on new PRs.
> > >
> > > -Ram
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> > > >
> > > > -Sudha
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <yanghua1127@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Ram,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Vino
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code
> quality
> > > over
> > > > > > time!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras
> Subramaniam
> > > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code
> > > coverage
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > hudi
> > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential
> > > coverage
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you
> > might
> > > > see
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios
> here,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence
> the
> > > code
> > > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just
> have
> > to
> > > > > > rebase
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > latest master.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one
> diff
> > > > > (#1350)
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't
> > happen.
> > > > > Could
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
> > monitoring
> > > > > > upcoming
> > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists.
> > > Please
> > > > > > ping
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding
> code
> > > > > > coverage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > -Sivabalan
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam <mr...@uber.com.INVALID>.
There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my
observation so far.
*old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master*
*new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master*
1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage
reports (no comment from codecov bot)
2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No coverage
for PR and hence negative 67% reported
3. new PR - coverage properly reported
So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all old PRs
are flushed out.
-Ram
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things reliably
> working..
>
> >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked branch
> and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
>
> Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Thank you all for your kind words :)
> >
> > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero
> coverage
> > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a ticket
> > with codecov
> > <
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e=
> > >
> > today to understand this issue better.
> >
> > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for
> master.
> > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current master
> > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which doesn't
> > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are rebased.
> It
> > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
> > eventually on new PRs.
> >
> > -Ram
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> > >
> > > -Sudha
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > > >
> > > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ram,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Vino
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code quality
> > over
> > > > > time!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> > >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > > > was
> > > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code
> > coverage
> > > > of
> > > > > > hudi
> > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential
> > coverage
> > > > > during
> > > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you
> might
> > > see
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios here,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence the
> > code
> > > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just have
> to
> > > > > rebase
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > latest master.
> > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one diff
> > > > (#1350)
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't
> happen.
> > > > Could
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be
> monitoring
> > > > > upcoming
> > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists.
> > Please
> > > > > ping
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding code
> > > > > coverage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Ram
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > -Sivabalan
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org>.
Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things reliably
working..
>> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked branch
and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage
Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
<mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> Thank you all for your kind words :)
>
> An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage
> for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a ticket
> with codecov
> <
> https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098
> >
> today to understand this issue better.
>
> Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for master.
> This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current master
> and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which doesn't
> have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are rebased. It
> is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
> eventually on new PRs.
>
> -Ram
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
> >
> > -Sudha
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Great job, thanks for your work.
> > >
> > > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> > >
> > > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Ram,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Vino
> > > > >
> > > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code quality
> over
> > > > time!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > > was
> > > > > > merged
> > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code
> coverage
> > > of
> > > > > hudi
> > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential
> coverage
> > > > during
> > > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you might
> > see
> > > > some
> > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios here,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence the
> code
> > > > > > coverage
> > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just have to
> > > > rebase
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > latest master.
> > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one diff
> > > (#1350)
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't happen.
> > > Could
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be monitoring
> > > > upcoming
> > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists.
> Please
> > > > ping
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding code
> > > > coverage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Ram
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > > -Sivabalan
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam <mr...@uber.com.INVALID>.
Thank you all for your kind words :)
An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage
for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a ticket
with codecov
<https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098>
today to understand this issue better.
Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for master.
This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current master
and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which doesn't
have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are rebased. It
is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away
eventually on new PRs.
-Ram
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
>
> -Sudha
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Great job, thanks for your work.
> >
> > Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
> >
> > > Good job! thanks for adding.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ram,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Vino
> > > >
> > > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code quality over
> > > time!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Diff 1347 <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e=
> > was
> > > > > merged
> > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code coverage
> > of
> > > > hudi
> > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential coverage
> > > during
> > > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you might
> see
> > > some
> > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios here,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence the code
> > > > > coverage
> > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just have to
> > > rebase
> > > > to
> > > > > > latest master.
> > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one diff
> > (#1350)
> > > > > where
> > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't happen.
> > Could
> > > > have
> > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be monitoring
> > > upcoming
> > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists. Please
> > > ping
> > > > me
> > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding code
> > > coverage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ram
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > > -Sivabalan
> > >
> >
>
Re: Test coverage is now integrated to codecov.io
Posted by Bhavani Sudha <bh...@gmail.com>.
This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran!
-Sudha
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great job, thanks for your work.
>
> Sivabalan <n....@gmail.com> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道：
>
> > Good job! thanks for adding.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ram,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Vino
> > >
> > > Vinoth Chandar <vi...@apache.org> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道：
> > >
> > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code quality over
> > time!
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam
> > > > <mr...@uber.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > Diff 1347 <https://github.com/apache/incubator-hudi/pull/1347> was
> > > > merged
> > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code coverage
> of
> > > hudi
> > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential coverage
> > during
> > > > > peer reviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you might see
> > some
> > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios here,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence the code
> > > > coverage
> > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just have to
> > rebase
> > > to
> > > > > latest master.
> > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one diff
> (#1350)
> > > > where
> > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't happen.
> Could
> > > have
> > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be monitoring
> > upcoming
> > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists. Please
> > ping
> > > me
> > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding code
> > coverage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ram
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > -Sivabalan
> >
>