Added Codecov to CI Pipeline #820
Conversation
| with: | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }} | ||
| files: ./code-coverage-report/build/reports/jacoco/codeCoverageReport/codeCoverageReport.xml | ||
| if: steps.jacoco_report.conclusion == 'success' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does steps.jacoco_report.conclusion != 'success' if that step does not run? Just checking, as that step only runs on a certain OS, Java version, etc. (see line 69)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this gets skipped if the previous step doesn't run. Initially I had the same conditions as the previous step, but that felt redundant for this step.
However, I just realized that the previous step has continue on error as true, so I have changed this to use outcome instead of conclusion so that it runs iff the code coverage report succeeds. For conclusion == success, it will run even if the step fails with an error which can cause issues uploading and break the workflow.
Removed token dependency, build cache clean and replaced outcome with conclusion
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #820 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage ? 0
=======================================
Files ? 0
Lines ? 0
Branches ? 0
=======================================
Hits ? 0
Misses ? 0
Partials ? 0 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: Manu Sridharan <msridhar@gmail.com>
|
@armughan11 I think the next step is to land this PR, and then test things out by creating another PR (maybe one that reduces test coverage) from a fork. Do you agree? And if so, could you create that test PR after this one lands? |
|
@msridhar That sounds good! I can create that PR once this lands! |
Replaced Coveralls with Codecov for the CI pipeline
Fixes #499