Skip to content

OBPIH-6649 Add support for Jacoco code coverage reporting#4933

Merged
ewaterman merged 3 commits intodevelopfrom
ft/OBPIH-6649-jacoco-code-coverage
Nov 12, 2024
Merged

OBPIH-6649 Add support for Jacoco code coverage reporting#4933
ewaterman merged 3 commits intodevelopfrom
ft/OBPIH-6649-jacoco-code-coverage

Conversation

@ewaterman
Copy link
Member

@ewaterman ewaterman commented Nov 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

✨ Description of Change

A concise summary of what is being changed. Please provide enough context for reviewers to be able to understand the change and why it is necessary. If the issue/ticket already provides enough information, you can put "See ticket" as the description.

Link to GitHub issue or Jira ticket: https://pihemr.atlassian.net/browse/OBPIH-6649

Description: Generates a code coverage report using Jacoco whenever tests are run and then uploads them to Codecov when commits are pushed to PRs or when PRs are merged to develop.

Codecov dashboard: https://app.codecov.io/gh/openboxes/openboxes/

image

image

And this is what the raw HTML Jacoco reports that codecov is built from look like (we probably won't use these much except for local testing):
Screenshot from 2024-11-07 17-34-05

@ewaterman ewaterman self-assigned this Nov 8, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added type: feature A new piece of functionality for the app domain: devops Changes or discussions relating to dev ops automation flag: config change Hilights a pull request that contains a change to the app config labels Nov 8, 2024
@ewaterman ewaterman added the status: work in progress For issues or pull requests that are in progress but not yet completed label Nov 8, 2024
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Please upload report for BASE (develop@c24eb29). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files 
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             develop   #4933   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage           ?   7.57%           
  Complexity         ?     803           
=========================================
  Files              ?     596           
  Lines              ?   42170           
  Branches           ?   10258           
=========================================
  Hits               ?    3195           
  Misses             ?   38512           
  Partials           ?     463

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@ewaterman
Copy link
Member Author

ewaterman commented Nov 8, 2024

The Codecov report comment here should be more interesting once we merge to develop and it has something to compare to. I still need to configure exactly what the comment displays (I want to make sure it does a diff on changed files and doesn't show the whole coverage) but I'll leave that for the next PR.

@ewaterman ewaterman removed the status: work in progress For issues or pull requests that are in progress but not yet completed label Nov 8, 2024
awalkowiak
awalkowiak reviewed Nov 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@awalkowiak awalkowiak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall, looks good to me. Can we get a list of all files that it looks into? Is it everything from the build/classes/groovy/main? Locally I see some changelogs there and taglibs. 5% coverage seems small? It kinda aligns with the ~5% that we had in the 0.8.x, but feels like we bumped up the coverage by at least a few percentage points recently? 🤔

@ewaterman
Copy link
Member Author

ewaterman commented Nov 12, 2024

@awalkowiak yeah everything under build/classes/groovy/main is included. Jacoco calculates coverage slightly differently than Cobretura does (which is what we were using in Grails 1 but has since fallen out of support) so I'm not surprised the percentage is somewhat off. We could do some more filtering out if we want (such as excluding all *TagLib) but I think it's fine that the number isn't perfect. The main goal is to have coverage gradually going up.

@ewaterman
Copy link
Member Author

ewaterman commented Nov 12, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Actually you were right! The filter condition I had on closures was causing all closures to appear as 0% covered. I removed it and we're at 7.5% now which feels more accurate.

image

jmiranda
jmiranda approved these changes Nov 12, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@jmiranda jmiranda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am speechless. 🫶

@ewaterman ewaterman merged commit 47cc0e5 into develop Nov 12, 2024
@ewaterman ewaterman deleted the ft/OBPIH-6649-jacoco-code-coverage branch November 12, 2024 21:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@awalkowiak awalkowiak awalkowiak left review comments

@jmiranda jmiranda jmiranda approved these changes

Assignees

@ewaterman ewaterman

@awalkowiak awalkowiak

Labels

domain: devops Changes or discussions relating to dev ops automation flag: config change Hilights a pull request that contains a change to the app config type: feature A new piece of functionality for the app

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@ewaterman @jmiranda @awalkowiak