[no-relnote] Enable CodeCov #958
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR Overview
This PR enables CodeCov integration to track Go unit test coverage. It adds a new CodeCov upload step under the "test" job and makes minor adjustments to the GitHub Actions workflow configuration.
- Added CodeCov action in the "test" job.
- Configured environment variables for Go version extraction.
- Maintained setup consistency across testing and build steps.
Reviewed Changes
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| .github/workflows/golang.yaml | Added CodeCov step for coverage reporting and adjusted version setup |
Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)
.github/workflows/golang.yaml:96
- The variable substitution operator differs from the one in the test job (':='). Consider using the consistent syntax ':=' for extracting GOLANG_VERSION unless the differing behavior is intentional.
echo "GOLANG_VERSION=${GOLANG_VERSION##GOLANG_VERSION ?= }" >> $GITHUB_ENV
Welcome to Codecov 🎉Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests. Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️ |
|
umm let's leave this for later on, we might need to move Go actions to hosted runners if we want to pass the secret during PR |
| - name: Install Go | ||
| uses: actions/setup-go@v5 | ||
| with: | ||
| go-version: ${{ env.GOLANG_VERSION }} | ||
|
|
||
| - run: make test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we change this to make coverage instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it actually makes sense from the perspective of a Makefile file functionality; make coverage would actually generate an output artifact. So I am not against it, I'll leave it as your call
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't we need the coverage.out artifact?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, it actually makes sense from the perspective of a Makefile file functionality; make coverage would actually generate an output artifact. So I am not against it, I'll leave it as your call
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. We have two targets:
make testmake coverage
The first generates coverage.out and the second filters out coverage related to mocks to generate a .no-mocks file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry I was not aware of the make coverage but for codecov we need the output file from make test
.github/workflows/golang.yaml
Outdated
| with: | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }} | ||
| files: ./coverage.out | ||
| fail_ci_if_error: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to block CI on an external system failing?
That's not true. Secrets are not available on PRs from forks, but should be available from the |
ture, I forgot about copy-pr-bot I was thinking in the old way o passing secrets. still will retake this PR after we cut the release |
|
/ok to test |
Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Arango Gutierrez <[email protected]>
|
Here's a look of how we would be able to visualize the results https://app.codecov.io/gh/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit
|
|
@tariq1890 if you like this, we could replace the |
|
@ArangoGutierrez as a general question, how does |
It is free for OSS repos. |
|
@elezar, any thoughts on this? |
Please confirm whether this can be run from a PR through the copy bot? You also have not answered by question as to how this compares to |
Here's a detailed comparison Comparison: Coveralls vs. Codecov (GitHub Actions – Code Coverage)
Summary:
References: |
|
@elezar PTAL |
This patch enables CodeCov to track or Go unit test coverage