feat: add flags in codecov #3295
Conversation
vishvamsinh28
requested review from
derberg,
akshatnema,
magicmatatjahu,
anshgoyalevil,
Mayaleeeee and
asyncapi-bot-eve
as code owners
WalkthroughThe pull request updates the workflow file Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Suggested reviewers
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
✅ Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3295 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage ? 53.17%
=========================================
Files ? 21
Lines ? 598
Branches ? 0
=========================================
Hits ? 318
Misses ? 280
Partials ? 0
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml (1)
Line range hint
78-84: Consider adding a name to the Codecov flag for better clarity.While the addition of the
unittestsflag is good, consider making it even more descriptive by using a named flag. This can provide more context in the Codecov dashboard and reports.Here's a suggested improvement:
- if: steps.packagejson.outputs.exists == 'true' name: Upload Coverage to Codecov uses: codecov/codecov-action@e28ff129e5465c2c0dcc6f003fc735cb6ae0c673 with: fail_ci_if_error: true files: ./coverage/lcov.info flags: unittests name: codecov-umbrella token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }} verbose: trueAdding the
name: codecov-umbrellaparameter can help in identifying this specific coverage report in Codecov, especially if you plan to add more flags or coverage reports in the future.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- .github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml (1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/if-nodejs-pr-testing.yml (1)
83-83: LGTM! Good addition of the Codecov flag.The addition of the
flags: unittestsparameter to the Codecov upload step is a positive change. This flag will help in categorizing the coverage reports in Codecov, making it easier to track and analyze unit test coverage separately from other types of tests or coverage reports.This change aligns well with the PR objective and follows Codecov best practices for organizing coverage data.
|
⚡️ Lighthouse report for the changes in this PR:
Lighthouse ran on https://deploy-preview-3295--asyncapi-website.netlify.app/ |
Added flags in codecov
Demo of it in my forked repo :- vishvamsinh28#17
Summary by CodeRabbit