Skip to content

CLDSRV-814: prevent premature codecov results #6032

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
bert-e merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2025
Merged

CLDSRV-814: prevent premature codecov results #6032

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions codecov.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,10 @@
---
codecov:
require_ci_to_pass: true
notify:
Copy link
Contributor

@francoisferrand francoisferrand Dec 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does this affect GitHub comment?

There is another setting explicitly affecting it if I remember correctly, but it has fewer options.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tcarmet tcarmet Dec 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It does, the github comment will wait for those conditions to be reached before being sent now.

wait_for_ci: true
after_n_builds: 9
Copy link
Contributor

@francoisferrand francoisferrand Dec 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this needed since you also specify "wait for ci" ?

(Generally, I dislike this option as it creates a risk that we forget to update it, and possibly lose the notification if the workflow is reworked to reduce number of "reports")

Copy link
Contributor Author

@tcarmet tcarmet Dec 15, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes it is needed, if I only leave wait_for_ci it will get a single report, and wait for the job of that particular report to finish, instead of waiting for the whole workflow to finish.

And yes it does create a bit of maintenance, but honestly in my experience number of reports tend to go up, instead of down. So I don't think it's that much of a big deal.


parsers:
javascript:
enable_partials: yes
Expand Down
Loading