Skip to content

Conversation

@ararslan
Copy link
Member

Coverage hasn't been properly submitted in a long time. The issue as reported by the CI job is that we need a token, so I've added one in the repository settings and this commit just tells the action to use it.

Coverage hasn't been properly submitted in a long time. The issue as reported by the CI job is that we need a token, so I've added one in the repository settings and this commit just tells the action to use it.
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 10, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 39.03%. Comparing base (c1e8462) to head (983326b).
Report is 18 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #318   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   39.02%   39.03%           
=======================================
  Files         233      233           
  Lines        6144     6151    +7     
  Branches     1608     1608           
=======================================
+ Hits         2398     2401    +3     
- Misses       3393     3397    +4     
  Partials      353      353           

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

@ararslan ararslan merged commit 5a88ede into master Jan 10, 2025
19 checks passed
@ararslan ararslan deleted the aa/codecov branch January 10, 2025 21:00
@giordano
Copy link
Member

giordano commented Mar 3, 2025

I've added one in the repository settings and this commit just tells the action to use it.

For what is worth, there's already an organisation-wide one, you overrode that one.

@ararslan
Copy link
Member Author

ararslan commented Mar 3, 2025

Was the organization-wide token there in early January? Shouldn't matter regardless whether the organization-wide or repository-level token is used.

@giordano
Copy link
Member

giordano commented Mar 3, 2025

It has been there for a year 😉

@ararslan
Copy link
Member Author

ararslan commented Mar 3, 2025

Huh, I wonder why Codecov was complaining in CI about the token then. Maybe the action version was old or something. This was ~2 months ago so has been pretty well GC'd from my brain.

@giordano
Copy link
Member

giordano commented Mar 3, 2025

I think you only needed the change in this PR, without creating a new token 🙂

@ararslan
Copy link
Member Author

ararslan commented Mar 3, 2025

Ahhhh, that makes sense. Feel free to delete the repo token if you prefer.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants