[Biopython-dev] Online tools to track our test coverage & code quality
Fields, Christopher J
cjfields at illinois.edu
Fri Nov 27 14:39:58 UTC 2015
I recall it being turned off due to this. It may be worth us looking into codecov.io as well.
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 8:20 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Chris,
> 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