Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork32k
Allow up to a 0.01% drop in coverage#30
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #30 +/- ##==========================================- Coverage 82.37% 82.37% -0.01%========================================== Files 1427 1427 Lines 350948 350948 ==========================================- Hits 289088 289085 -3- Misses 61860 61863 +3 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
I'm curious what the reasoning for this is? |
Several pull request threads, such as this one, have gotten noisy but irrelevant 'coverage decreased by .01 %' warnings. I am puzzled that this patch to the .yml driver should change code coverage at all. If the change shrinks the message somehow, I am in favor of it. |
In my rush to get this submitted this morning, I failed to referencepython/core-workflow#21, which inspired this. @nedbat, the object here is to avoid having Codecov "fail" its check due to random noise in the coverage results. This is obviously not the ideal solution; ideally, we should find and squash the noise. This is a good way to make the coverage check more useful in the short term, though. @terryjreedy, I don't think this will affect the messages left by codecov, but will affect the status in the 'merge' box at the bottom of the PR (note the difference between this one and#20). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I saw the coverage complaining on multiple PR whereas the change couldn't have any effect of the coverage, so I'm +1 on this change ;-)
A first pass on the documentation, including usage and migration guides. API docs will be done in a follow up PR.
* Replace pep517.build with buildResolvespython#30* Prefer simple usageCo-authored-by: Jason R. Coombs <jaraco@jaraco.com>
* Use `extend-ignore` in flake8 configThis option allows to add extra ignored rules to the default listinstead of replacing it.The default exclusions are: E121, E123, E126, E226, E24, E704,W503 and W504.Fixespython#28.Refs:*https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/pull/2486/files#r541943356*https://flake8.pycqa.org/en/latest/user/options.html#cmdoption-flake8-extend-ignore*https://flake8.pycqa.org/en/latest/user/options.html#cmdoption-flake8-ignore* Enable complexity limit.Fixesjaraco/skeleton#34.* Replace pep517.build with build (python#37)* Replace pep517.build with buildResolvespython#30* Prefer simple usageCo-authored-by: Jason R. Coombs <jaraco@jaraco.com>* Use license_files instead of license_file in meta (python#35)Singular `license_file` is deprecated since wheel v0.32.0.Refs:*https://wheel.readthedocs.io/en/stable/news.html*https://wheel.readthedocs.io/en/stable/user_guide.html#including-license-files-in-the-generated-wheel-fileCo-authored-by: Jason R. Coombs <jaraco@jaraco.com>
I'm not sure that this is correct, but we'll see what codecov thinks. It does pass the validator, but I couldn't get the validator to fail at all with well-formed YAML...