CLDSRV-814: prevent premature codecov results

[tcarmet]

Prevent premature codecov results to be published on PR status before all tests successfully run and pass.

development/9.0 contains 9 codecov uploads, development/9.2 contains 10, should be fine to set it up as 9 starting from 9.0 and if needed we can bump it.

[bert-e]

Hello tcarmet,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options

name	description	privileged	authored
/after_pull_request	Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval	Bypass the pull request author's approval	⭐
/bypass_build_status	Bypass the build and test status	⭐
/bypass_commit_size	Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA	⭐
/bypass_incompatible_branch	Bypass the check on the source branch prefix	⭐
/bypass_jira_check	Bypass the Jira issue check	⭐
/bypass_peer_approval	Bypass the pull request peers' approval	⭐
/bypass_leader_approval	Bypass the pull request leaders' approval	⭐
/approve	Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request.		✍️
/create_pull_requests	Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches	Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus	Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity	Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait	Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.

Available commands

name	description	privileged
/help	Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status	Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear	Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build	Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset	Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset	Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

[bert-e]

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-814 contains:

• None

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

• 9.0.35

• 9.1.8

• 9.2.11

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-814, or the target
branch of this pull request.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 83.39%. Comparing base (55ea857) to head (d2c36f4).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on development/9.0.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           development/9.0    #6032   +/-   ##
================================================
  Coverage            83.39%   83.39%           
================================================
  Files                  189      189           
  Lines                12208    12208           
================================================
  Hits                 10181    10181           
  Misses                2027     2027           

Flag	Coverage Δ
file-ft-tests	66.78% <ø> (ø)
kmip-ft-tests	26.98% <ø> (ø)
mongo-v0-ft-tests	68.11% <ø> (ø)
mongo-v1-ft-tests	68.10% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
multiple-backend	35.67% <ø> (ø)
quota-tests	32.28% <ø> (-0.79%)	⬇️
quota-tests-inflights	34.20% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unit	67.61% <ø> (ø)
utapi-v2-tests	33.33% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[bert-e]

Incorrect fix version

The Fix Version/s in issue CLDSRV-814 contains:

• 9.2.11

Considering where you are trying to merge, I ignored possible hotfix versions and I expected to find:

• 9.0.35

• 9.1.8

• 9.2.11

Please check the Fix Version/s of CLDSRV-814, or the target
branch of this pull request.

[francoisferrand]

Is this needed since you also specify "wait for ci" ?

(Generally, I dislike this option as it creates a risk that we forget to update it, and possibly lose the notification if the workflow is reworked to reduce number of "reports")

[tcarmet]

Yes it is needed, if I only leave wait_for_ci it will get a single report, and wait for the job of that particular report to finish, instead of waiting for the whole workflow to finish.

And yes it does create a bit of maintenance, but honestly in my experience number of reports tend to go up, instead of down. So I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

[francoisferrand]

Does this affect GitHub comment?

There is another setting explicitly affecting it if I remember correctly, but it has fewer options.

[tcarmet]

It does, the github comment will wait for those conditions to be reached before being sent now.

[tcarmet]

/approve

[bert-e]

Integration data created

I have created the integration data for the additional destination branches.

• this pull request will merge improvement/CLDSRV-814-prevent-premature-codecov into
  development/9.0
• w/9.1/improvement/CLDSRV-814-prevent-premature-codecov will be merged into development/9.1
• w/9.2/improvement/CLDSRV-814-prevent-premature-codecov will be merged into development/9.2

The following branches will NOT be impacted:

• development/7.10
• development/7.4
• development/7.70
• development/8.8

You can set option create_pull_requests if you need me to create
integration pull requests in addition to integration branches, with:

@bert-e create_pull_requests

The following options are set: approve

[bert-e]

I have successfully merged the changeset of this pull request
into targetted development branches:

• ✔️ development/9.0

• ✔️ development/9.1

• ✔️ development/9.2

The following branches have NOT changed:

• development/7.10
• development/7.4
• development/7.70
• development/8.8

Please check the status of the associated issue CLDSRV-814.

Goodbye tcarmet.

The following options are set: approve