Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Include coverage from code executed remotely #255

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

davidwaroquiers
Copy link
Member

In integration tests, part of the jobflow-remote code is executed in docker containers (jf execution command line within slurm/sge/pbs submission scripts). This PR activates coverage in the docker containers and copies back the coverage files locally. These are then combined with the local coverage file to give a proper coverage.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Feb 6, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 72.06%. Comparing base (cd38086) to head (12455c3).
Report is 7 commits behind head on develop.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (27.12%) is below the target coverage (50.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #255      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    71.35%   72.06%   +0.70%     
===========================================
  Files           50       50              
  Lines         6749     6758       +9     
  Branches      1083     1084       +1     
===========================================
+ Hits          4816     4870      +54     
+ Misses        1568     1514      -54     
- Partials       365      374       +9     
Flag Coverage Δ
all_tests 27.12% <ø> (-44.24%) ⬇️
db_tests 66.91% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
integration_tests 45.62% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
unit_tests 27.12% <ø> (+13.74%) ⬆️

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

see 6 files with indirect coverage changes

Copy link
Member

@ml-evs ml-evs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks nice, thanks @davidwaroquiers!

My only general comment is that perhaps the "remote" coverage could be flagged as such -- i.e., take the coverage file from docker as a separate xml and upload it to codecov with a separate flag before combining it with the rest. Might help some future debugging, though can definitely be done in a different PR! Otherwise happy to approve pending the conflict fix and discussion of Python versions.

@davidwaroquiers
Copy link
Member Author

Looks nice, thanks @davidwaroquiers!

My only general comment is that perhaps the "remote" coverage could be flagged as such -- i.e., take the coverage file from docker as a separate xml and upload it to codecov with a separate flag before combining it with the rest. Might help some future debugging, though can definitely be done in a different PR! Otherwise happy to approve pending the conflict fix and discussion of Python versions.

Thanks for your review!

This can be done and we can discuss it. My only "concern" is that in any case, this will only ever cover a "small" part of the code as the "remote" coverage is only about the "jf execution" command (hidden command from the user btw, it doesn't appear in the help as it is only meant to be used "internally" within the submitted script). Where would you see this to help debugging ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants