> On Jul 5, 2016, at 05:18, Adi Roiban <a...@roiban.ro> wrote: > > > > On 3 July 2016 at 20:32, Craig Rodrigues <rodr...@crodrigues.org > <mailto:rodr...@crodrigues.org>> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com > <mailto:gl...@twistedmatrix.com>> wrote: > > For now, let's just bite the bullet and require 100% patch coverage from here > on out. If we hit a really nasty case where it really is a significant > investment of effort, then maybe we can revisit this discussion and explore a > better way to express this exception without losing information about test > coverage completely. > > > Requiring 100% patch coverage sounds reasonable. However, what if the > infrastructure for running coverage and uploading reports > to codecov.io <http://codecov.io/> isn't working? > Running coverage under Pypy is apparently not working ( > https://github.com/twisted/twisted/pull/223#issuecomment-228626722 > <https://github.com/twisted/twisted/pull/223#issuecomment-228626722> ). This > is blocking forward progress on patches to fix the Pypy tests. > > > I have disabled codecov patch coverage for now as I think that codecov.io > <http://codecov.io/> reporting is buggy. > > For coverage merge protection please see See > https://github.com/twisted-infra/braid/issues/213 > <https://github.com/twisted-infra/braid/issues/213> Thanks for documenting this.
This PR was recently rejected due to lack of test coverage (with no other feedback): https://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/5705#comment:15. If we believe codecov is buggy, are we sure that this is actually the case, and it wasn't just a codecov bug? -glyph
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
