Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-05 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Jul 5, 2016, at 05:18, Adi Roiban wrote: > > > > On 3 July 2016 at 20:32, Craig Rodrigues > wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: > > For now, let's just bite the bullet and require 100% pa

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-05 Thread Craig Rodrigues
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Adi Roiban wrote: > > > > I have disabled codecov patch coverage for now as I think that codecov.io reporting is buggy. > > For coverage merge protection please see See https://github.com/twisted-infra/braid/issues/213 > I'm still seeing problems with codecov. In

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-05 Thread Adi Roiban
On 3 July 2016 at 20:32, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: > >> >> For now, let's just bite the bullet and require 100% patch coverage from >> here on out. If we hit a really nasty case where it really *is* a >> significant investment of effor

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-04 Thread Tom Prince
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Adi Roiban wrote: > I would prefer to see the coverage reports for tests, even if we don't > enforce 100% coverage. Is a quick way to check that the test is executed on > at least one builder. I think this is definitely desirable. > We are preaching the Ultimate

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-03 Thread Craig Rodrigues
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > For now, let's just bite the bullet and require 100% patch coverage from > here on out. If we hit a really nasty case where it really *is* a > significant investment of effort, then maybe we can revisit this discussion > and explore a be

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-03 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Jul 3, 2016, at 01:53, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > > While I agree that 100% test coverage is an ideal worth aspiring to, I think > getting there from the current state is going to be a large amount of work > that yields very little benefit at this point in time; I would say that there >

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-03 Thread Adi Roiban
On 3 July 2016 at 09:53, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > The tests directories can simply be excluded in coverage.py (or codecov), > I don't think there's any need to do something more complicated than that. > > That is, don't report coverage at all for the test code? I would prefer to see the covera

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-03 Thread Tristan Seligmann
The tests directories can simply be excluded in coverage.py (or codecov), I don't think there's any need to do something more complicated than that. While I agree that 100% test coverage is an ideal worth aspiring to, I think getting there from the current state is going to be a large amount of wo

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-07-03 Thread Adi Roiban
Hi, What decision should be made based on the feedback sent so far? Should we disabled the codecov coverage enforcement for 100% coverage for a patch as it also blocks missing coverage in a test? If we want to enforce only implementation code, then we need to update the tests to send separate re

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 18:37, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > > Hi, > > The conversation about coverage exceptions came up due to this: > > https://github.com/twisted/twisted/pull/261 > > > I have that up to 97.87% of patch coverage. I cannot merge it b

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 17:36, Jean-Paul Calderone > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 2016, at 04:13, Jean-Paul Calderone > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Adi

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Craig Rodrigues
Hi, The conversation about coverage exceptions came up due to this: https://github.com/twisted/twisted/pull/261 I have that up to 97.87% of patch coverage. I cannot merge it because the codecov integration with GitHub is currently configured to not accept patches which don't have 100% patch cov

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 04:13, Jean-Paul Calderone > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Adi Roiban wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Recently we have introduced a hard check of 100% coverage for all changes. >> This is done via coverage + cod

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Jun 30, 2016, at 04:13, Jean-Paul Calderone > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Adi Roiban > wrote: > Hi, > > Recently we have introduced a hard check of 100% coverage for all changes. > This is done via coverage + codecov + github protected branches. >

Re: [Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Adi Roiban wrote: > Hi, > > Recently we have introduced a hard check of 100% coverage for all changes. > This is done via coverage + codecov + github protected branches. > > Now, if your patch is not 100% covered github will not let you merge it. > > See for examp

[Twisted-Python] Coverage exceptions

2016-06-30 Thread Adi Roiban
Hi, Recently we have introduced a hard check of 100% coverage for all changes. This is done via coverage + codecov + github protected branches. Now, if your patch is not 100% covered github will not let you merge it. See for example this change: https://github.com/twisted/twisted/pull/261/files#