Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixing codecoverage #395

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 16, 2024
Merged

Fixing codecoverage #395

merged 5 commits into from
May 16, 2024

Conversation

SamFerracin
Copy link
Contributor

Context:
A few open PRs are failing because of indirect changes in the coverage of three files, all of which are unrelated to the given PRs.
Here, I either add tests (where I know how to test) or # pragma: no cover to the problematic lines

@SamFerracin SamFerracin added the no changelog Pull request does not require a CHANGELOG entry label May 7, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 7, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 87.63%. Comparing base (680bf64) to head (6f2ae27).

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #395      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    87.44%   87.63%   +0.18%     
===========================================
  Files           81       81              
  Lines         6142     6129      -13     
===========================================
  Hits          5371     5371              
+ Misses         771      758      -13     
Files Coverage Δ
mrmustard/training/trainer.py 100.00% <ø> (+10.75%) ⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 680bf64...6f2ae27. Read the comment docs.

@zeyueN
Copy link
Collaborator

zeyueN commented May 10, 2024

I think codecov is wrong....

Tried running tests locally with prints inserted where codecov claims to be not covered, it is actually hitting those lines.

@SamFerracin
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think codecov is wrong....

Tried running tests locally with prints inserted where codecov claims to be not covered, it is actually hitting those lines.

Mmmh interesting..
So what would you suggest we do? We could force this in with #pragma no cover?

Copy link
Collaborator

@ziofil ziofil left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

👍

@ziofil ziofil merged commit 3d8c81c into develop May 16, 2024
8 checks passed
@ziofil ziofil deleted the cov branch May 16, 2024 21:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
no changelog Pull request does not require a CHANGELOG entry
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants