Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christian Brabandt wrote:
>
>> On Sa, 25 Mär 2017, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>>
>> > > https://github.com/chrisbra/vim/commit/3b79bae9a9d1198b28dc606c9a64b
>> >
>> > Thanks. Let's give that a try.
>>
>> That seems to work. I wonder however, why the coverage is less than on
>> coveralls...
>
> Looks like Coveralls is back. You could compare a file to see where the
> difference comes from.
I compared coveralls and codecov stats for 3 files at random
(main.c, mbytes.c and normal.c).
main.c
========================================================
#lines #relevant #covered #missed %cov
coveralls 4247 1433 860 635 60.01%
========================================================
#line #line #lines #lines %cov
tracked hits partial misssed
codecov 1412 777 0 635 55.02%
========================================================
mbytes.c
========================================================
#lines #relevant #covered #missed %cov
coveralls 6581 1476 991 602 67.14%
========================================================
#line #line #lines #lines %cov
tracked hits partial misssed
codecov 1473 871 0 602 59.13%
========================================================
normal.c
========================================================
#lines #relevant #covered #missed %cov
coveralls 9627 3917 3115 1102 79.53%
========================================================
#line #line #lines #lines
tracked hits partial misssed %cov
codecov 3843 2741 0 1102 71.32%
========================================================
All files have different coverage statistics.
The number '#missed lines' in coveralls seem to be
always be equal to the number '#lines missed' in codecov.
This is the most important number in my opinion, as it shows
where we should improve tests.
Other numbers are always different. I would have expected that
'#relevant' lines in coveralls to be equal to ''#line tracked'
in codecov but they seem be counting lines different. No idea why
yet. I don't think it matters much anyway, as long as we have
a metric which allows to see improvement to code coverage, and
as long as they show the same uncovered lines, which
seems to be the case.
I find Codecov web interface nicer and faster to use
than coveralls. With coveralls, browsing through source
files was sometimes jumping up and down for no apparent
reasons, which was quite annoying. No such problem
with codecov.
Regards
Dominique
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
