-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
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
[FIX] use absolute paths in codecov #2496
Conversation
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/seqan/seqan3/9cU6Hgh1Y5mFvCPqL6nYuTvLqYvC |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2496 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.29% 98.20% -0.10%
==========================================
Files 268 268
Lines 11055 10441 -614
==========================================
- Hits 10867 10254 -613
+ Misses 188 187 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
def976c
to
262f8bb
Compare
262f8bb
to
6db646e
Compare
45d1808
to
6db646e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice work!
The wild coverage change is due to https://docs.codecov.io/docs/fixing-reports now working,
coverage is now not reported for lines like
, i.e., lines only containing a single symbol from
{}()
.we apparently had 614 such occurrences.
One of them was apparently a miss.
So we "lost" 613 hits and 1 miss.
All in all that means that our coverage did not decrease, because we did not gain any misses.
But from a relative POV, we had
(10867 - 188) / 10867 = 0.9827
coverage before, but now only have(10254 - 187) / 10254 = 0.9817
coverage.See also: https://docs.codecov.io/docs/coverage-offset
TLDR; the coverage dropped because our coverage code base shrunk.