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

Include integration tests in code coverage calculation #427

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 21, 2024

Conversation

dgn
Copy link
Collaborator

@dgn dgn commented Oct 16, 2024

This makes sure we're also measuring code coverage for our integration tests. I hope codecov is smart enough to merge the files.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Grimm <dgrimm@redhat.com>
@dgn dgn requested a review from a team as a code owner October 16, 2024 15:10
@dgn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dgn commented Oct 16, 2024

Hmm this takes way too long and is going to eat up our GH actions budget. Will check if we can just upload after running the tests in prow.

/hold

Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 77.22%. Comparing base (8896f99) to head (0ebb03c).
Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #427       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   60.19%   77.22%   +17.03%     
===========================================
  Files          34       34               
  Lines        1638     1638               
===========================================
+ Hits          986     1265      +279     
+ Misses        600      301      -299     
- Partials       52       72       +20     

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

@dgn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dgn commented Oct 17, 2024

Removing the hold. Apparently, as our org is a CNCF org, they should be paying for GitHub Actions. Let's find out :)

@luksa
Copy link
Contributor

luksa commented Oct 17, 2024

So this re-runs all the tests even though we already run them in the other jobs? Isn't there an option to generate a coverage file there and then use that file to generate this report?

@dgn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dgn commented Oct 17, 2024

So this re-runs all the tests even though we already run them in the other jobs? Isn't there an option to generate a coverage file there and then use that file to generate this report?

I'm looking at removing the prow jobs if we have enough GitHub action budget, and then only running the github actions for unit and integration tests. The problem with generating the profiles in the prow jobs is the following:

  • we cannot upload the profiles from the prowjobs because we cannot add secrets to the prow instance
  • we could push the profiles to the repo and then just use github actions to upload but it's ~0.5mb to add to the repo

@asmigala
Copy link
Contributor

we cannot add secrets to the prow instance

Why not?

@dgn
Copy link
Collaborator Author

dgn commented Oct 18, 2024

we cannot add secrets to the prow instance

Why not?

people running it won't let us

@istio-testing istio-testing merged commit 9a048d9 into istio-ecosystem:main Oct 21, 2024
17 checks passed
openshift-service-mesh-bot pushed a commit to openshift-service-mesh-bot/sail-operator that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
* upstream/main:
  Include integration tests in code coverage calculation (istio-ecosystem#427)
  Improve failure messages for supportedversion unit tests (istio-ecosystem#442)
openshift-service-mesh-bot pushed a commit to openshift-service-mesh-bot/sail-operator that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
* upstream/main:
  Add spec.values.global.platform to IstioCNI (istio-ecosystem#443)
  Include integration tests in code coverage calculation (istio-ecosystem#427)
  Improve failure messages for supportedversion unit tests (istio-ecosystem#442)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants