Skip to content

[chore][codecov] Add code coverage results for remaining workflows #6049

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

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

crobert-1
Copy link
Contributor

@crobert-1 crobert-1 commented Mar 28, 2025

Description:

The following workflows should be included in codecov results, but are not yet:

auto-instrumentation
darwin-test
dotnet-instr-deployer-add-on
integration-test
linux-package-test
otelcol-fips
splunk-ta-otel
win-package-test

This PR adds code coverage for each of these workflows.

@crobert-1 crobert-1 changed the title [chore][codecov] Add code coverage results for remaning workflows [chore][codecov] Add code coverage results for remaining workflows Mar 28, 2025
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 28, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 54.33%. Comparing base (0235c50) to head (8bc0c74).
Report is 134 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6049      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   55.36%   54.33%   -1.03%     
==========================================
  Files         220      190      -30     
  Lines       15407    13366    -2041     
==========================================
- Hits         8530     7263    -1267     
+ Misses       6393     5676     -717     
+ Partials      484      427      -57     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
  • 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

@crobert-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Note: Code coverage from this change has dropped so far as now python code files are considered in the total of lines in the project, when initially they weren't.

@crobert-1 crobert-1 force-pushed the add_integration_test_cover branch from c0fb10d to 3d34a5e Compare March 28, 2025 21:48
Copy link
Contributor

@pjanotti pjanotti left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some initial Qs...

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ try {

# Run the tests
Set-Location $repo_root/tests/zeroconfig/windows/
go test -timeout 5m -tags zeroconfig -v
go test -timeout 5m -tags zeroconfig -v ./... -cover -covermode=atomic -coverpkg $repo_root/packaging/msi -args -test.gocoverdir="$repo_root/coverage"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is only test code on this folder.

@@ -51,14 +51,21 @@ jobs:
make install-tools
mkdir -p unit-test-results-${{ matrix.OS }}/junit
trap "go-junit-report -set-exit-code < unit-test-results-${{ matrix.OS }}/go-unit-tests.out > unit-test-results-${{ matrix.OS }}/junit/results.xml" EXIT
make for-all CMD="make test-without-race" | tee unit-test-results-${{ matrix.OS }}/go-unit-tests.out
make test-cover-without-race | tee unit-test-results-${{ matrix.OS }}/go-unit-tests.out
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see that the target now does ALL_PKG_DIRS, but I'm curious why.

@@ -231,7 +239,16 @@ jobs:

- name: Run the MSI tests
run: |
go test -timeout 15m -v github.com/signalfx/splunk-otel-collector/tests/msi
mkdir -p $(PWD)\coverage
go test -timeout 15m -v github.com/signalfx/splunk-otel-collector/tests/msi \
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't link directly to code being exercised, it performs the test creating processes. Do you know if it is able to capture correctly code coverage in this case? Some other languages do that, by instrumenting the code being tested, but I don't think that this can do that.

@crobert-1
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing as this work has been completed and/or isn't adding value.

@crobert-1 crobert-1 closed this May 21, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 21, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants