[Biopython-dev] Online tools to track our test coverage & code quality
Fields, Christopher J
cjfields at illinois.edu
Fri Nov 27 14:06:37 UTC 2015
Just a note Re: coveralls.io, this was enabled for BioPerl last year but it was problematic initially to set up. IIRC we had intermittent timeout issues with it, I think due to some network-related tests and/or dependencies.
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 3:32 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've just been looking at https://codecov.io/ for logging unit test coverage,
>>> which can be used an add on on top of the GitHub and TravisCI with just
>>> a few small changes to the .travis.yml file ...
>> I'd forgotten about another option in this area, https://coveralls.io
> Tiago raised this on the list back in May,
> We had a good discussion about what to do with the online tests and
> those will many external dependencies - which otherwise get poor
> test coverage scores in our current TravisCI configuration. On a
> related point, I've been meaning to try the Mac OS X support under
> TravisCI out.
> I started comparing coveralls.io and codecov.io yesterday, both using
> the same coverage data as input. It took a little tweaking to get them
> to report about the same overall coverage score:
> e.g. using my test branch and personal repository:
> It seems that for now codecov.io does a much better job of combining
> all the TravisCI build targets to give overall coverage - while coveralls.io
> seems to list each file once per build target.
> My overall impression so far is a preference for the CodeCov.io
> interface - it also seems to have a more responsive website.
> We could of course setup both.
> Biopython-dev mailing list
> Biopython-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
More information about the Biopython-dev