-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 75
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
remove 1to2 and depreciations #214
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #214 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.53% 95.75% +0.21%
==========================================
Files 17 11 -6
Lines 2085 1910 -175
==========================================
- Hits 1992 1829 -163
+ Misses 93 81 -12 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
This looks good to me. Could you remove the 1to2 section from Also, perhaps a separate discussion, but should the codecov checks be optional? It is nice to keep track of the coverage, but when it is not 100% it is hard to say whether it is good or bad that the number goes down slightly as code is added and removed. I think the ideal case is to require 100% coverage and mark code that doesn't need to be covered as "no cover". |
Mmm I'm not exactly sure how the codecov CI works. the github action that I set up submits the code to codecov.io, but then it seems like codecov.io sends data back as a github action that can pass or fail. I'm not sure how we would "make codecov checks optional". Right now I don't think they're part of the "final results" github action, so codecov not passing doesn't block merging a PR. This seems fine to me.
I haven't looked at the code coverage on |
done I think codecov is set up fine, we can use our own judgement for cases like this and still merge |
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.
Looks good to me now!
I think you are right about codecov already being optional in the way that I meant. In any case, it is passing now 🙂
Looks great. |
I think we had enough consensus to merge here! |
Here I've removed: