Include gpu and example tests also in codecov coverage reporting and enable omitted folder coverage#1154
Conversation
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe PR implements unified coverage collection across multiple test suites by updating configuration to enable parallel coverage tracking, adding environment variables for coverage subprocess handling, configuring Codecov uploads with test-category flags, and making coverage arguments configurable via tox environment variables. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@pyproject.toml`:
- Line 278: The coverage threshold was lowered to fail_under = 65 without a
restoration plan; add a concise comment directly above the fail_under = 65
setting describing the tracking issue number (or create one) and target date to
restore fail_under back to 70+, the rationale for the temporary 65% threshold
and expected timeline, and a note about why existing excludes (e.g.,
*/plugins/*, */export/*) remain sufficient; additionally, review and, if
appropriate, document alternative temporary exclusions under [tool.coverage.run]
(mention relevant module patterns) instead of lowering the global threshold so
reviewers can see the remediation plan and accountability.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: ceb8f12e-2c0e-470d-a5ce-9cf4e6dceca5
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
pyproject.toml
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1154 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 70.20% 75.84% +5.64%
==========================================
Files 230 349 +119
Lines 26098 39823 +13725
==========================================
+ Hits 18322 30204 +11882
- Misses 7776 9619 +1843
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
eeb4c25 to
3519464
Compare
9fa84e5 to
d73ad0f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.
Inline comments:
In `@pyproject.toml`:
- Around line 273-275: The project enables parallel coverage collection
(parallel = true) so child processes produce .coverage.* shards but CI never
runs coverage combine before generating/uploading coverage.xml, causing lost
subprocess data; fix by adding a CI step to run "coverage combine" prior to
generating/ uploading coverage (e.g., before the codecov/codecov-action step) or
instead update the coverage config in pyproject.toml by adding patch =
"subprocess" under [tool.coverage.run] so modern Coverage.py auto-combines; also
ensure the sitecustomize.py subprocess hook and pytest-cov usage are compatible
with whichever approach you choose.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 4ee46094-73bc-4676-a202-2f9a734fbdf3
📒 Files selected for processing (7)
.github/codecov.yml.github/sitecustomize.py.github/workflows/_example_tests_runner.yml.github/workflows/gpu_tests.yml.github/workflows/unit_tests.ymlpyproject.tomltox.ini
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (2)
- .github/workflows/unit_tests.yml
- .github/sitecustomize.py
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (4)
- .github/codecov.yml
- tox.ini
- .github/workflows/gpu_tests.yml
- .github/workflows/_example_tests_runner.yml
d73ad0f to
9e3210b
Compare
Signed-off-by: Keval Morabia <28916987+kevalmorabia97@users.noreply.github.com>
9e3210b to
15a18b4
Compare
So far, we only measured unit test coverage but we also have gpu test and example tests which needed to be setup differently to track in overall codecov coverage so we get accurate coverage reporting
Summary by CodeRabbit