On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 at 13:39, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is a Coveralls GitHub action, not sure what that requires though.
A quick test with this failed. I found that it does not support jacoco execution files. See Coveralls GH action issue 22 [1]. The issue has some suggestions for a replacement for java code coverage: 1. Run the coveralls maven plugin in the workflow and submit the report using 'coveralls:report'. This is the way we submitted to coveralls when using travis. 2. Use the GH action for Codecov.io. This should provide better integration to PRs so I tried this. I added the Codecov GH action and all worked fine and there is a public page for the collections project [2]. However I did not change any java files so the report of the diff is limited [3]. So far I have built the action into a separate workflow. Thus you should get coverage for only JDK 8. However it should work if dropped into the current build workflow. I would expect this to produce reports for all JDKs in the matrix and it would be redundant noise unless the tests use some element of randomness and code execution paths are not always identical. This occurs in Commons RNG in coveralls reporting of coverage; perhaps some other projects with random or latency dependent tests would benefit from this redundant analysis too. I will ask Claude to rebase his bloom filter PR on master and see if the action integrates well into the GH PR page. Alex [1] https://github.com/coverallsapp/github-action/issues/22 [2] https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/commons-collections [3] https://app.codecov.io/gh/apache/commons-collections/commit/b228aea7f7494a42e60382004ba6cd381941bc4e --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
