-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7.9k
TST : enable coveralls #4367
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
TST : enable coveralls #4367
Conversation
d237b8d
to
710bf5e
Compare
I have no idea why this isn't working on travis. It runs on my local machine which makes me think there is some version issues going on here. |
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ matrix: | |||
env: BUILD_DOCS=true | |||
|
|||
install: | |||
- pip install -q --use-mirrors nose python-dateutil $NUMPY pep8 pyparsing pillow sphinx!=1.3.0 | |||
- pip install python-dateutil $NUMPY pep8 pyparsing pillow sphinx!=1.3.0 coveralls coverage |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On purpose that nose is dropped here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, nose is installed by default on travis, I was looking for version conflict issues (there were a whole bunch of force-pushed attempts at this).
Perhaps try running the tests without gdb? |
source=matplotlib | ||
[report] | ||
omit = | ||
*/python?.?/* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To actually get a cover report locally I had to remove this line (/python?.?/)
I don't think this is actually related to the Travis issue which I cannot reproduce.
Progress, I can reproduce this on my work machine. Datadump for my self for later:
|
@jenshnielsen The issue seems to be that travis has nose 1.3.4 install and |
Makes sense I think it fails now because pip install nose>=1.3.6 doesn't upgrade nose. I guess we need to do either |
Changes Unknown when pulling 43c3d70 on tacaswell:tst_coveralls into * on matplotlib:master*. |
- also update nose
We run tests out-of-repo which is to ensure that we pick up the installed version of mpl, not version which happens to be in the current directory (but I am not sure we strictly need this any more now that absolute imports are a thing). The coveralls scripts assume that you are running your tests _in_ the repo and are trying to extract git information from the directory they are run in, hence are failing for everything but the doc builds (which don't run nose so have no coverage). This exclude the doc build from uploading to coveralls and moves the cover output to be where coveralls expects it to be (and cds back into the repo).
30142c1
to
f470e0d
Compare
woo, I think this is (finally) converging. I have turned off the comment spam so that should not show up anywhere else again. @jenshnielsen @mdboom @efiring @WeatherGod Thoughts? I am 👍 on this. The number we get back is depressing, but hopefully this will motivate use to fix it;) This is a great thing to work on at hackthons/sprints. I would propose that for scipy this year the focus should be on getting the test coverage up. There is a lot of low-hanging fruit (like functions that we never call in the test suite). |
|
I am definitely 👍 I agree with all that you said about motivation, sprints etc And while I think we should avoid getting into to rigorous rules about coverage when merging PRs I think it is a useful tool to judge if additional tests are needed when writing a PR |
There is a knob to set how much the coverage has to decrease to be a 'fail', once this is up and running, we should set that to be 1 or 2 % which will keep bug-fixes from failing, but will hopefully fail on new features with out tests. |
I don't know how to use this effectively. I've only poked around a little bit on the "coverage" link, but what is returned appears to be quite a mish-mash--not a very good S/N ratio. |
I would have it set not to fail. It is good information for us, and it can
|
replaced by #4678 |
Attempt to turn on coveralls to track how we are doing on test coverage.