You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Our pipeline runs coverallsapp action in parallel with several different versions of python. Noticed that after making a non-functional change to a file, (removed comment) our coveralls check was failing the build for a -0.0% decrease.
Difference Between Versions
Search results in a small difference the relevant lines are calculated between python versions:
3.7
3.8
The difference between the to are the method declaration lines. 3.6 and 3.7 seem to leave it out, while 3.8 and beyond include the line as "relevant". This is the only significant difference I can find between the passing coveralls checks (3.6, 3.7) and the failing checks, (3.8, 3.9)
Questions
Can anyone shed any light on this issue?
Is there a workaround besides increasing the failure threshold?
Is this a bug?
Am I misdiagnosing my coverage failures?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
Our pipeline runs coverallsapp action in parallel with several different versions of python. Noticed that after making a non-functional change to a file, (removed comment) our coveralls check was failing the build for a -0.0% decrease.
Difference Between Versions
Search results in a small difference the relevant lines are calculated between python versions:
3.7
3.8
The difference between the to are the method declaration lines. 3.6 and 3.7 seem to leave it out, while 3.8 and beyond include the line as "relevant". This is the only significant difference I can find between the passing coveralls checks (3.6, 3.7) and the failing checks, (3.8, 3.9)
Questions
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: