feat: Stage 5 of nox implementation - adding coverage targets#479
feat: Stage 5 of nox implementation - adding coverage targets#479c24t merged 4 commits intogoogleapis:masterfrom
nox implementation - adding coverage targets#479Conversation
c24t
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The coverage target itself looks good, but some questions about the config:
Bacause of .coveragerc, running coverage alone fails under 100, but running nox -e coverage fails under 99, and running nox generates a coverage report but never fails. Why the three different limits? And what's the point of generating the coverage report on each build if we never fail because of coverage?
I see this is how python-spanner does it too (https://github.com/googleapis/python-spanner/blob/master/noxfile.py, https://github.com/googleapis/python-spanner/blob/master/.coveragerc), I just don't understand why they're doing it this way.
This is a common way among other API as well, e.g. Storage, Firestore, Bigtable etc. |
As suggested in #466 , this represents item 5 of the recommended list aimed to implement nox testing automation in multiple steps.
Change list:
coversession tonoxfile.py+ configuration parameters;The code, at it current state, shows only 41% test coverage:
Towards #474.