Question from a lurker: There are many many tickets like https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19669 that say codecov.io cannot be use. Have you configured it in a different way? (asking because I want to use it)
Kenn On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 9:58 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > Got it .. Thanks for confirming~! > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ramachandran Madras Subramaniam > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes. Something on those lines. Also the last few PRs don't have the > report > > from codecov bot. codecov is not recognizing these commits as not "CI > > passed" for some reason. > > [image: image.png] > > Working with the codecov community > > < > https://community.codecov.io/t/pr-reporting-very-low-coverage-and-hence-a-huge-decrease-in-coverage/1098/5?u=ramachandranms > > > > figure this out. > > > > -Ram > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
