Essentially you are seeing that the new ones are okay. But the old ones are not okay even with rebasing
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:39 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam <[email protected]> wrote: > There are multiple scenarios with the ongoing situation.This is my > observation so far. > > *old PR = PR raised before coverage change merged into master* > *new PR = PR raised after coverage change merged into master* > > 1. old PR + diff without coverage changes (not rebased) - No coverage > reports (no comment from codecov bot) > 2. old PR + diff with coverage changes (rebased to master) - No coverage > for PR and hence negative 67% reported > 3. new PR - coverage properly reported > > So my intuition is that all PRs should have proper reports once all old PRs > are flushed out. > > -Ram > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:59 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Please keep an eye on this. and let us know when you see things reliably > > working.. > > > > >> I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero coverage for the forked > branch > > and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage > > > > Do you see this for new PRs as well i.e ones opened this week? > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:57 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thank you all for your kind words :) > > > > > > An update on the issues. I am still seeing some PRs reporting zero > > coverage > > > for the forked branch and hence a drop of 60%+ coverage. Opened a > ticket > > > with codecov > > > < > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.codecov.io_t_pr-2Dreporting-2Dvery-2Dlow-2Dcoverage-2Dand-2Dhence-2Da-2Dhuge-2Ddecrease-2Din-2Dcoverage_1098&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=fNhdruIwvzpmZdQiE26lhWZCR34WWsmp93NzGnooJwI&s=6vtdSTTP7c_LqhCB5drQGg1Cq-B7k-YF5S-u9m5a1Yg&e= > > > > > > > today to understand this issue better. > > > > > > Also you might see some of the PRs not pulling up any coverage for > > master. > > > This is due to the fact that those PRs have not rebased to current > master > > > and have opened the diff against an older commit in master which > doesn't > > > have any data in codecov. This should go away if these PRs are rebased. > > It > > > is not mandatory to rebase as of now as this problem will fade away > > > eventually on new PRs. > > > > > > -Ram > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 8:20 PM Bhavani Sudha <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > This is super useful. Thanks Ramachandran! > > > > > > > > -Sudha > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 7:42 PM leesf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Great job, thanks for your work. > > > > > > > > > > Sivabalan <[email protected]> 于2020年2月29日周六 下午12:02写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Good job! thanks for adding. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:41 PM vino yang <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ram, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your great work to make the code coverage clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Vino > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> 于2020年2月29日周六 上午4:39写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Ram! This will definitely help improve the code > quality > > > over > > > > > > time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:45 AM Ramachandran Madras > Subramaniam > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Diff 1347 < > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_apache_incubator-2Dhudi_pull_1347&d=DwIFaQ&c=r2dcLCtU9q6n0vrtnDw9vg&r=KLmNyF_KPBPNb-BIVUsy8j_1tYfqyNa57jwVia1c9kM&m=SS0RbqE858fB7dZFTDERnraMoIystkopIUY-jADgVHs&s=LWGjgAlb8k98t_HYrdUbYZ-rjQhDfVPRUYzXafRsJNA&e= > > > > > was > > > > > > > > merged > > > > > > > > > into master yesterday. This enables visibility into code > > > coverage > > > > > of > > > > > > > hudi > > > > > > > > > in general and also provides insights into differential > > > coverage > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > > peer reviews. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is very recent and is getting integrated, you > > might > > > > see > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > partial results in your diff. There can be 2 scenarios > here, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Your diff is not rebased with latest master and hence > the > > > code > > > > > > > > coverage > > > > > > > > > report was not generated. To solve this issue, you just > have > > to > > > > > > rebase > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > latest master. > > > > > > > > > 2. Code coverage ran but reported as zero. Three was one > diff > > > > > (#1350) > > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > we saw this issue yesterday. This in general shouldn't > > happen. > > > > > Could > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > been due to an outage in codecov website. I will be > > monitoring > > > > > > upcoming > > > > > > > > > diffs for the near future to see if this problem persists. > > > Please > > > > > > ping > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > in the diff if you have any questions/concerns regarding > code > > > > > > coverage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Ram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > -Sivabalan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
