[Biopython-dev] Online tools to track our test coverage & code quality
p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com
Fri Nov 27 14:20:32 UTC 2015
I can see the BioPerl coveralls.io hasn't been updated recently -
I guess you guys have not pursued this then?
Just browsing the latest BioPerl coverage reports in Firefox or Safari,
the coveralls.io table by file gets stuck at "Loading..." which is discouraging.
It was slow, but could display my Biopython test branch results in the
FILES table - but the page-by-page interface felt clunky.
On the other hand I had no problems with viewing the Biopython
coverage reports on https://codecov.io/ so far.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Fields, Christopher J
<cjfields at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 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