Improve GH workflow #299
Improve GH workflow #299
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #299 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 95.48% 95.48%
Complexity 598 598
=========================================
Files 35 35
Lines 1796 1796
=========================================
Hits 1715 1715
Misses 81 81
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
.github/workflows/build.yml
Outdated
| - run: composer test -- --coverage-clover=coverage.xml --log-junit junit.xml --testdox | ||
| - uses: codecov/codecov-action@v4 | ||
| with: | ||
| token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@uuf6429 I have authorised the codecov app (for Behat/Gherkin only at this point, we can add it to other repositories as and when required).
I'm still not clear why the workflow specifies a secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN that is not defined (and therefore empty) and whether that will continue to work once this PR is merged. I'm somewhat surprised if Codecov allow anyone to upload coverage reports unauthenticated, but maybe that's the case. Can you provide any more info on how this works? If we don't in fact require a secret then we should remove these token arguments from the yaml to avoid confusion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understand, there were 3 options:
- per-repository secret
- per-organisation secret
- github app/plugin
..so I'm guessing that the secret is no longer needed with the 3rd option.
I'll remove it and we can see what happens. 🤷
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to still be working fine.
I'm somewhat surprised if Codecov allow anyone to upload coverage reports unauthenticated, but maybe that's the case.
My guess is that:
- codecov already knows about this project (it even lists other behat org projects)
- codecov understands that this is a PR run (it even shows that in the branch dropdown, prefixing my branches with my username)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess easiest way to see this is to get it merged (after the other point(s) are also considered).
@carlos-granados can you also give this PR a look please?
|
@uuf6429 well, the codecov steps in master are passing (in that they're exiting 0) but I don't think they're actually working, the logs for both say:
There's also an error Are you able to look into what needs to be done to get this working? |
|
@acoulton how about we add back the token? In the past that's what I've been using. |
|
Although interestingly, there are actually results for the master branch: Strange. |
|
Moved to #301 (comment) |
Fixes #283.
Someone with access should follow the comment below, to set up codecov for the Behat org.