Chore: enable unit test coverage comment #2637
Conversation
Branch preview✅ Deploy successful! |
ESLint Summary View Full Report
Report generated by eslint-plus-action |
Coverage report❌ Getting code coverage data failed.
Test suite run success961 tests passing in 133 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 38afdf5 |
katspaugh
force-pushed
the
coverage
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9aab136
to
ac90a73
Compare
Coverage report❌ An unexpected error occurred. For more details, check console
Test suite run success961 tests passing in 133 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 585a689 |
Coverage report
Test suite run success961 tests passing in 133 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 008127d |
| env: | ||
| GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} | ||
| - name: Annotations and coverage report | ||
| uses: ArtiomTr/jest-coverage-report-action@v2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason we are not using Coveralls? It seems that we already have some projects on there: https://coveralls.io/github/safe-global
It should be free for open-source projects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see the point of depending on a 3rd-party service for something available locally.
| skip-step: install | ||
| package-manager: yarn | ||
| test-script: yarn test:ci | ||
| github-token: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The docs of the coverage tool suggest to use this together with https://github.com/marocchino/sticky-pull-request-comment
Such that there is only one coverage comment that gets updated on change instead of having a new comment on each run.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It keeps a single comment already, those two other comments in this PR are due to a different configuration while I was testing it.
| @@ -32,9 +32,6 @@ | |||
| "engines": { | |||
| "node": ">=16" | |||
| }, | |||
| "pre-commit": [ | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we discuss this? It feels out of scope of the coverage report.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's dicuss it, yes. I'll start a thread on Slack.
|
@schmanu this action runs Jest on both the target branch and the PR branch and is supposed to give you a diff. I'm not sure why it's not reflected in this PR. Maybe it needs to be merged to dev indeed. |
What it solves
I've switched our CI to a different Jest action that has a better coverage report and the same annotations as the previous one.
Also, I've deleted the pre-commit hook because it was really slow.