-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
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
Add test coverage reporting #94
Comments
This issue is likely to be a barrier: I think we would need a windows CI build to do it currently. Definetly worth doing though. |
Is that the only option? 😞 Just had a very quick look, and seems like this may now be built-into dotnet: https://medium.com/swlh/generating-code-coverage-reports-in-dotnet-core-bb0c8cca66 Edit: Other option is https://github.com/tonerdo/coverlet |
It's certainly doable https://coveralls.io/github/tznind/StarshipWanderer?branch=master but it's a bit of a pain and for me the easiest way seemed to be building under windows (with appveyor in this case). This was the command (along with some package references and a
|
Just tried the following: $ dotnet add package coverlet.collector
$ dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"
$ pip install pycobertura
$ pycobertura show TestResults\f3d23c47-7901-4264-9cc6-b80dd7a27dd2\coverage.cobertura.xml
Filename Stmts Miss Cover Missing
------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------ ------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
RabbitMQAdapter.cs 249 249 0.00% 27-442, 44-88
TimeTracker.cs 8 8 0.00% 29-31, 19-23
Options\CliOptions.cs 2 2 0.00% 15-23
Options\ConsumerOptions.cs 13 8 38.46% 23, 36-42
Options\GlobalOptions.cs 54 23 57.40% 34, 38, 50-55, 76, 84, 88, 91-111
Options\ProducerOptions.cs 28 24 14.28% 17, 30-66
Messaging\BatchProducerModel.cs 4 4 0.00% 27-29, 15
Messaging\Consumer.cs 99 54 45.45% 21-26, 65, 75, 80, 91, 96-103, 111, 131-185, 198, 209-211, 218-220, 48-52
Messaging\ControlMessageConsumer.cs 114 114 0.00% 66-232, 19-56
Messaging\ProducerModel.cs 57 57 0.00% 78-150, 32-67
Messages\AccessionDirectoryMessage.cs 29 16 44.82% 37-39, 50-51, 64-71, 29-35
Messages\DicomFileMessage.cs 79 54 31.64% 26-44, 67-114, 132-133, 152-164, 56-64
Messages\FatalErrorMessage.cs 20 20 0.00% 10-43, 16-20
Messages\MessageHeader.cs 111 38 65.76% 107-109, 126-134, 156-164, 169-170, 172, 190-197, 83-90
Messages\RabbitMqXDeathHeaders.cs 69 69 0.00% 12-123, 33-63
Messages\SeriesMessage.cs 36 12 66.66% 23-41, 65-66, 85-92
Messages\TagPromotionMessage.cs 23 23 0.00% 13-60
Messages\Extraction\ExtractFileCollectionInfoMessage.cs 30 20 33.33% 38-57, 61-62, 64, 68-76, 44-47
Messages\Extraction\ExtractFileMessage.cs 24 24 0.00% 16-62, 27-30
Messages\Extraction\ExtractFileStatusMessage.cs 34 34 0.00% 15-82, 37
Messages\Extraction\ExtractionRequestInfoMessage.cs 29 29 0.00% 10-59, 17
Messages\Extraction\ExtractionRequestMessage.cs 29 16 44.82% 38-40, 46-47, 53-54, 56, 60-69
Messages\Extraction\ExtractMessage.cs 42 24 42.85% 45-46, 55-82, 38-39
Messages\Extraction\IsIdentifiableMessage.cs 37 37 0.00% 8-73, 23-44
MessageSerialization\JsonCompatibleDictionary.cs 21 1 95.23% 54
MessageSerialization\JsonConvert.cs 28 15 46.42% 42, 47-52, 62-70, 21-24
Helpers\MicroserviceObjectFactory.cs 29 29 0.00% 28-76, 11
Execution\MicroserviceHost.cs 97 97 0.00% 127-215, 113-119, 30-120
Execution\MicroserviceHostBootstrapper.cs 33 33 0.00% 24-67, 18-21
Events\FatalErrorEventArgs.cs 12 7 41.66% 9-10, 19-23
TOTAL 1440 1141 19.01% |
That's cool, is that file format supported by Coveralls / codecov.io ? If so happy for you to integrate that into travis. |
Not sure, but i think it outputs a standard xml format. I've just been pointed to this new tool as well: https://github.com/microsoft/ApplicationInspector. Seems interesting but not had a chance to poke about yet. |
Looks a bit like lgtm and snyk. I'm all for any tool that runs from CI and outputs to a sensible webhost (i.e. doesn't require looking at build logs and has a notification system for PR / failures etc). Lets descope this till we have MVP up and running. Integration repo will give us good confidence in new features but this would be extra icing. |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: