You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@bookkeeper.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2020/10/29 02:22:34 UTC
[GitHub] [bookkeeper] Ghatage opened a new issue #2466: BookKeeper code coverage is broken because of Jenkins migration
Ghatage opened a new issue #2466:
URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/2466
**BUG REPORT**
We recently have initiated a move to the new jenkins at -> https://ci-hadoop.apache.org/job/BookKeeper/
However, the code coverage job we have at coveralls is still synced to the old jenkins at -> https://builds.apache.org/job/bookkeeper_codecoverage/
***To Reproduce***
Last run job at https://coveralls.io/github/apache/bookkeeper is from August 17 2020
cc @sijie @eolivelli @jiazhai
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [bookkeeper] Ghatage commented on issue #2466: BookKeeper code coverage is broken because of Jenkins migration
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
Ghatage commented on issue #2466:
URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/2466#issuecomment-718403208
Yes my thoughts exactly.
Code coverage driven testing has proven to reduce bugs. I've been
championing this at work and want to bring the same aspect to the community.
Code coverage per pull request commit.
Optional merge barrier based on % coverage of the commit vs a preset
threshold.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 11:03 PM Enrico Olivelli <no...@github.com>
wrote:
> I am not sure anyone ever taken those reports into consideration, apart
> from the days when we set them up.
>
> Btw it would be cool to resume that work.
>
> I would find it more useful during pull requests validation, because you
> can easily check if the new code is covered by tests
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/2466#issuecomment-718380524>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAX6QQIAQURA6X3H4Y46B7TSNEARJANCNFSM4TDD2Q4Q>
> .
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [bookkeeper] eolivelli commented on issue #2466: BookKeeper code coverage is broken because of Jenkins migration
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
eolivelli commented on issue #2466:
URL: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/2466#issuecomment-718380524
I am not sure anyone ever taken those reports into consideration, apart from the days when we set them up.
Btw it would be cool to resume that work.
I would find it more useful during pull requests validation, because you can easily check if the new code is covered by tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org