Replies: 1 comment 2 replies
-
I'd love having code coverage enabled for this repo. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two ways of reporting? I also had a thought about adding Linux to the CI pipeline anyways. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I'm not sure what your stance is on adding code coverage to FluentAssertions, but I find it a good way to detect untested functionality.
Because I added code coverage with
coveralls
to one of my own projects, I created a quick demo how this could look for FA.Example PR: https://github.com/eNeRGy164/fluentassertions/pull/2
Coveralls: https://coveralls.io/github/eNeRGy164/fluentassertions
I didn't point the PR to this repo the keep the CI reporting clean before knowing if you would want to go into this direction.
Because there is no baseline in coveralls, the information is a bit limited, and doesn't post in the PR thread yet.
It would look something like eNeRGy164/LivingDocumentation#47
Coveralls
: https://coveralls.io/github/eNeRGy164/LivingDocumentationThere are 2 ways of reporting in the PR,
coveralls
can do it on it's own (but only works after having a baseline), and by usingCodeCoverageSummary
&sticky-pull-request-comment
.The last one is in a separate commits as explanation. As it needs to run as a docker container, which in GitHub actions is only allowed for Linux, there is also a second stage added for this to the CI.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions