CodeCov Tweaks

[PrivatePuffin]

Codecov has been hit-or-mis for a time now

It seems to have 2 flaws:

• Tests are actually taken into account when comparing coverage
• There is a random variance in coverage leading in the 0.0-0.4 range.

Motivation, Context and Description

• As far as I know there is no plan to write tests to cover tests, so this folder could just as well be excluded.
• Precision has been limited to whole percents only, but will round to nearest. This means 0.0-0.49 will round to zero (no change) and 0.51 will round to 1%.

This might also lead to a more realistic and stable codecov report.

How Has This Been Tested?

Automated tests for as far as thats even possible

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
• Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

• My code follows the ZFS on Linux code style requirements.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the contributing document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commit messages are properly formatted and contain Signed-off-by.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9650 into master will decrease coverage by <1%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #9650    +/-   ##
========================================
- Coverage      79%      79%   -<1%     
========================================
  Files         418      418            
  Lines      123544   123531    -13     
========================================
- Hits        97889    97702   -187     
- Misses      25655    25829   +174

Flag	Coverage Δ
#kernel	80% <ø> (ø)	⬇️
#user	67% <ø> (ø)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a7c3588...bf5b5ad. Read the comment docs.

[behlendorf]

Thanks! This appears to work as advertised.

Limiting the precision to whole percentage changes if a good idea, I hope should help eliminate some of the reported variation. Though due to the semi-random nature of several test cases (ztest) some variability is unavoidable.

From the codecov summary it wasn't clear to me that "tests/zfs-tests" was really excluded from the report. But the yaml looks right to me based on the documentation, so let's give it a try.

[PrivatePuffin]

@behlendorf Thank for your review.
I triple checked it also, it looks like codecov doesn't really accept directory ignore in a PR... But the documentation is clear indeed.