Skip to content

Conversation

@calixteman
Copy link
Collaborator

Normally we expect to have a/b/c/foo.gcno and a/b/c/foo.gcda in archives but for any reason the base paths can be different.
So the idea is to use filename + stamp (or checksum for llvm gcno/gcda) as a unique identifier when paths don't match.
In case where filename + stamp doesn't identify an unique stem then we fail.

@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #400 into master will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 65.71%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #400      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage    65.2%   65.28%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        4078     4162      +84     
  Branches     1010     1049      +39     
==========================================
+ Hits         2659     2717      +58     
+ Misses        649      632      -17     
- Partials      770      813      +43
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/producer.rs 83.93% <65.71%> (-1.28%) ⬇️
src/lib.rs 62% <0%> (-3.5%) ⬇️
src/parser.rs 58.72% <0%> (-1.21%) ⬇️
src/reader.rs 56.42% <0%> (-0.58%) ⬇️
src/path_rewriting.rs 70.66% <0%> (-0.45%) ⬇️
src/output.rs 72.39% <0%> (+5.73%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 27980cb...5467910. Read the comment docs.

@make-github-pseudonymous-again

Does this fix what I am experiencing here: travis lists a bunch of gcna/gcdo files covering all executables and libraries in the zip archive but codecov only lists the library source files.

@marco-c
Copy link
Collaborator

marco-c commented Apr 11, 2022

@calixteman do we still want to do this?

Copy link
Collaborator

@marco-c marco-c left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we still want to do this, the first step will be to rebase it.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 65.71429% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 65.28%. Comparing base (27980cb) to head (5467910).
⚠️ Report is 631 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/producer.rs 65.71% 10 Missing and 14 partials ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #400      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.20%   65.28%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        4078     4162      +84     
  Branches     1010     1049      +39     
==========================================
+ Hits         2659     2717      +58     
+ Misses        649      632      -17     
- Partials      770      813      +43     

☔ 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants