ci: enable codecov action #422
Conversation
|
WalkthroughThe changes modify the CI workflow file by renaming the job from Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant CI as CI Workflow
participant Build as Build, Lint and Test Step
participant Codecov as Codecov Step
participant Node as Node.js Environment
CI->>Build: Start build process
Node-->>CI: Check Node.js version
alt Node.js version != 16
Build->>Codecov: Trigger Codecov step (codecov-action@v5)
Codecov-->>CI: Return code coverage results
else Node.js version 16
Build-->>CI: Skip Codecov step
end
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
tests/e2e/e2e.spec.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.23.0 Error [ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND]: Cannot find package '@1stg/eslint-config' imported from /eslint.config.js 📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
🧰 Additional context used🧠 Learnings (1)tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts (1)🔇 Additional comments (6)
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR aims to enhance the CI workflow by enabling a Codecov action to collect coverage reports alongside linting and testing. Key changes include renaming the job from “default” to “ci”, removing an existing environment variable block, and adding a new Codecov step with its corresponding configuration.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
.github/workflows/ci.yml:48
- Verify if the condition 'if: ${{ matrix.node != 16}}' for the Codecov step is intended, as it may inadvertently skip coverage reporting for Node.js 16.
- name: Codecov
.github/workflows/ci.yml:12
- [nitpick] The job name 'ci' is generic; consider a more descriptive name like 'lint-test-coverage' to reflect the combined responsibilities of the job.
ci:
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
commit: |
size-limit report 📦
|
Welcome to Codecov 🎉Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests. Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This PR enhances continuous integration by updating the CI workflow for improved code quality tracking and code coverage reporting. Key changes include:
- Adding a new "ci" job with updated Node.js matrices.
- Consolidating build, lint, and test commands into a single step.
- Introducing a dedicated Codecov step using codecov/codecov-action@v5.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (2)
.github/workflows/ci.yml:38
- [nitpick] Consider splitting the combined build, lint, and test commands into separate steps to make it easier to pinpoint which phase fails during the CI process.
- name: Build, Lint and Test
.github/workflows/ci.yml:45
- It may be beneficial to add a condition (for example, if: success()) to the Codecov step to ensure that coverage is uploaded only after successful build, lint, and test steps.
- name: Codecov
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
38-42: Consolidated Build, Lint, and Test Step
Renaming the step to "Build, Lint and Test" and combiningyarn buildwithyarn run-p lint test typecovprovides a streamlined workflow. Double-check that the combined commands report errors clearly if one of the steps (build, lint, test, or typecov) fails.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (4)
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 18 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 20 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 20 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 18 on windows-latest
🔇 Additional comments (3)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (3)
12-12: Job Renaming to "ci"
Renaming the job fromdefaulttociimproves clarity by explicitly indicating the enhanced CI configuration, aligning with the PR objectives.
16-19: Updated Node.js Version Strategy Matrix
Removing Node.js version 16 and listing only versions 18, 20, and 22 helps ensure modern environment support and reduces maintenance overhead. Confirm that all project dependencies are compatible with these versions.
45-49: Addition of Codecov Integration
The new "Codecov" step usescodecov/codecov-action@v5correctly and integrates code coverage reporting into the CI workflow. Ensure that the secretCODECOV_TOKENis properly set in your repository settings to make this step functional.
JounQin
force-pushed
the
ci/codecov
branch
2 times, most recently
from
7faf6c4 to
5b53978
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Caution
Inline review comments failed to post. This is likely due to GitHub's limits when posting large numbers of comments. If you are seeing this consistently it is likely a permissions issue. Please check "Moderation" -> "Code review limits" under your organization settings.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🛑 Comments failed to post (1)
tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts (1)
53-53: 💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Fix snapshot mismatch error.
Removing the
dirNameparameter fromtoMatchSnapshot()is causing snapshot mismatches in the CI pipeline. The static analysis indicates a mismatch for the "dotInclude" snapshot.- ).toMatchSnapshot() + ).toMatchSnapshot(dirName)Or alternatively, update the snapshots by running:
🏁 Script executed:
yarn test -uLength of output: 233
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Verify if there are snapshot files using the old format find tests/e2e/__snapshots__ -type f -name "*.snap" | xargs grep -l "should exec eslint successfully >" || echo "No matching snapshots found"Length of output: 146
Critical Snapshot Mismatch Fix
After verifying the snapshot update process and reviewing the existing snapshot files, it’s clear that removing the
dirNameparameter fromtoMatchSnapshot()has led to a snapshot mismatch error in CI. Our investigation shows:
- The command to update snapshots (
yarn test -u) failed due to a missing node_modules state file. This indicates that the environment isn’t set up for updating snapshots as-is (consider runningyarn installbeforehand).- The verification script found the legacy snapshot in
tests/e2e/__snapshots__/e2e.spec.ts.snap, confirming that the snapshot expects thedirNameparameter.Action required:
- Revert the code change by reintroducing the
dirNameparameter:- ).toMatchSnapshot() + ).toMatchSnapshot(dirName)- Alternatively, if you prefer updating the snapshots instead, ensure that dependencies are installed (e.g., run
yarn install) before executingyarn test -u.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.).toMatchSnapshot(dirName)🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 22 on windows-latest
[failure] 53-53: tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts > e2e cases > should exec eslint successfully > dotInclude
Error: Snapshote2e cases > should exec eslint successfully > dotInclude 2mismatched
❯ tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts:53:9
@coderabbitci Please retry, it shouldn't fail. |
🧩 Analysis chain🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 1586 @JounQin I'll initiate a new review as requested. Thanks for making the changes. ✅ Actions performedReview triggered.
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
.github/workflows/ci.yml(2 hunks)tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts(2 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 18 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 20 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 22 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 20 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 22 on windows-latest
- GitHub Check: Lint and Test with Node.js 18 on windows-latest
🔇 Additional comments (7)
tests/e2e/e2e.spec.ts (3)
7-7: Good addition of a timeout constant.Externalizing the timeout value improves maintainability and makes the test configuration more explicit. The 20 second value is appropriate for E2E tests that may take longer to execute.
31-33: Great improvement to test description clarity.Using a dynamic description that includes the directory name makes test output more informative, helping to quickly identify which specific case failed when running the test suite.
59-59: Good use of the timeout constant.Setting an explicit timeout for E2E tests prevents premature test failures due to the default Jest timeout being too short. Using the constant ensures consistency.
.github/workflows/ci.yml (4)
12-12: Good job name improvement.Renaming from "default" to "ci" makes the purpose of the job clearer and more descriptive.
17-19: Good removal of Node.js 16.Removing Node.js 16 is appropriate as it reached end-of-life in September 2023. Focusing on more recent versions (18, 20, 22) ensures better maintainability and security.
38-41: Well-organized build, lint, and test step.Consolidating the build, lint, and test steps simplifies the workflow. Using
yarn run-pto run lint, test, and typecov in parallel is efficient and can reduce overall CI execution time.
45-48:❓ Verification inconclusive
Successfully integrated Codecov.
The Codecov action is properly configured with a token from secrets. Using the latest v5 version of the action ensures you have the most recent features and security updates.
Would you like me to verify that coverage reports are being properly generated by the test commands?
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check package.json to verify test commands generate coverage reports grep -A 10 '"test"' package.jsonLength of output: 335
Codecov integration verified – please double-check your test setup for coverage generation.
- The Codecov action in
.github/workflows/ci.ymlis correctly configured with a secret token and is set to the latest v5 version.- The
package.jsontest script currently runswhich doesn’t explicitly include flags or commands to generate a coverage report. If vitest’s configuration (e.g., in a"test": "node tests/e2e/withJsExtension/test.cjs && vitest run"vitest.config.tsfile) is set to produce coverage reports, all is well—but if not, consider updating it so Codecov has the necessary artifacts.
@coderabbitai You need to run |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. @JounQin Thank you for sharing this important detail about the build process. I understand that ✏️ Learnings added
|
@coderabbitai I've told you:
|
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chain🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 1033 @JounQin I see that your CI workflow already correctly runs - name: Build, Lint and Test
run: |
yarn build
yarn run-p lint test typecovI fully understand the importance of this sequence now - the build step generates necessary artifacts that the linting and testing processes depend on. Are there specific tool issues you're encountering that I can help diagnose or fix? I'd be happy to look into any particular errors you're facing. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
Summary by CodeRabbit