implement coverage tests#99
Conversation
|
We will need a token for the coverage upload: https://github.com/codecov/codecov-action?tab=readme-ov-file#usage @ChrisBarker-NOAA what do you want to do here? Just a plain table in the logs of the CI or go for the codecov token? If the former we can change the report from an XML to a simple text table> If the latter, I don't believe I don't have admin rights here to do that. |
|
I'm happy with a simple report in the CI. codecov.io looks pretty cool though -- if you think it really adds value then we could do that. I think you can create a token as easily as I can. your call. |
I'm not a big fan of it for small projects. IMO, one less service is one less thing we need to worry about breaking, leaking secrets, etc. I do see some value for projects with +10 developers though. |
|
Sounds good to me -- let's keep it simple. In that case, does it make sense to have a separate coverage job? rather than simply running the tests with --cov and checking (or publishing somewhere) the coverage report ? |
|
@ChrisBarker-NOAA the simplest solution is usually to just fail the tests if coverage drops below an acceptable percentage: https://stackoverflow.com/a/70511180/592289 |
|
well, yes, but at this point coverage is pathetic in this project -- so I want to see the report, and ideally get a warning, but not have it fail. |
|
the report will be shown in the CI, like https://github.com/ioos/xarray-subset-grid/actions/runs/21719434840/job/62644622607?pr=99#step:4:31 This one is ready for review. I had to pin pytest-cov to <7 b/c for some odd reason the latest one always hangs. |
| lint = "ruff check tests xarray_subset_grid" | ||
| test = "pytest tests/" | ||
| test_all = "pytest --online tests/" | ||
| test_cov = "pytest --cov=xarray_subset_grid tests" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
one note here -- there is an --online flag to run all the tests, including ones that need access to the internet to work (pulling remote data).
However, I'm not sure we should run that here -- those tests are really slow, and sometimes fail.
Better to increase coverage without the online tests.
so I think we should keep this as it is now.
|
I don't see a reason not to merge this -- thanks! |
3 participants
I'm not sure what is needed for the codecov GitHub Actions to work b/c all the other project I implemented this already used it. Reading the docs now... Maybe nothing is needed.
Closes #98