Create annotations based on diff-coverage, not full coverage #212
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-Authored-By: Martin Bernstorff <martinbernstorff@gmail.com>
|
End-to-end public repo |
Coverage reportThe coverage rate went from
Diff Coverage details (click to unfold)coverage_comment/annotations.py
coverage_comment/coverage.py
coverage_comment/main.py
coverage_comment/github.py
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a revamp of #188
I believe that the part that failed was:
https://github.com/py-cov-action/python-coverage-comment-action/pull/188/files#diff-5327f4a45499e33cab8758f61e6b738fc200a07b00c58fc231f37a3142461ac7R194-R207
which I removed completely from this PR, as it wasn't needed.
1/ This PR being created by me, we'll get e2e tests
2/ I've remade the commits and remove the things are are much unrelated. We still have a 1st commit that could be somewhat elsewhere, but we were being really inconsistent in types used, and it was visible when switching between cover and diff-cover, so hopefully it's better now