Codecov Report

Merging #35 (2103998) into main (977eb16) will increase coverage by 3.02%.
The diff coverage is 31.81%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #35      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   81.34%   84.37%   +3.02%     
==========================================
  Files           8        8              
  Lines         713      691      -22     
==========================================
+ Hits          580      583       +3     
+ Misses        133      108      -25     

Codecov CI is complaining about lines that changed in this PR but are not covered with unit tests.

Honestly, we don't have an adequate way to test anything involving Github's REST API usage (not without hitting the REST API's usage rate limit). So, the codecov complaints are null because the functionality wasn't unit tested before anyway.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

The overall coverage went up, but the diff coverage is below some target that codecov seems to have set (81.48%).

So far, I've tested the following configs:

        with:
          files-changed-only: true | false
          thread-comments: update
          no-lgtm: false

        with:
          files-changed-only: true | false
          thread-comments: true
          no-lgtm: false

Now, I have to test the same thread-comments inputs with no-lgtm: true.

Code coverage is missing some lines in make_annotations() now. I'd like to add a unit test to get those lines tested properly. Other lines in these changes can't be covered without using the GitHub REST API, so I won't worry about any of that as long as everything checks out on the test repo.

Code coverage is missing some lines in make_annotations() now. I'd like to add a unit test to get those lines tested properly.

TL;DR I need to find a better commit for the test_tidy_annotations()

After playing around with test_tidy_annotations() (which should cover these changes), I found that the commit we're using doesn't generate tidy advice for every condition (all values of lines_changed_only and tidy_checks using either config file or action defaults).

I also found that the filename matching was flawed in make_annotations(). So, I fixed it and updated the unit test... Should be done now.

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

Everything passed on the second round of tests in cpp-linter/test-cpp-linter-action#22. I'm now confident enough to merge this! @shenxianpeng Thanks for your patience.