Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Replace codecov in openedx-events #528

Closed
3 tasks
robrap opened this issue Jan 5, 2024 · 8 comments
Closed
3 tasks

Replace codecov in openedx-events #528

robrap opened this issue Jan 5, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor

robrap commented Jan 5, 2024

Acceptance Criteria:

Additional repos

Codecov upload is now simply failing in some repos and we've removed it as a required check (and made it an optional upload step) to unblock merges. In these repos, we should come back and review this decision after the replacement is done in one repo. The ticket should cover 1) switching to the replacement choice, and 2) re-enabling any coverage checks that have been made optional in the following repos:

  • openedx/edx-django-utils

Background Context:

I've seen the codecov upload issue in openedx-events, so we'll fix there as an example.

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor Author

robrap commented Jan 5, 2024

I guess this could have been an openedx-events issue, but oh well. We should inform the maintainers of the repo on the PR.

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor Author

robrap commented Jan 5, 2024

Diana posted this doc on the DEPR ticket: https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/developers/how-tos/use-python-coverage-comment.html

@nedbat nedbat self-assigned this Jan 9, 2024
@nedbat
Copy link
Contributor

nedbat commented Jan 12, 2024

The "Basic Usage" in the action's readme shows a two-workflow setup. We often didn't need this because we were adding the action to private repo, so no external contributions. The two-workflow setup allows tests to be run by untrusted contributors, and then trigger a section action that has credentials allowing it to finish.

With reduced access and the increase of forks, more pull requests will need the two-workflow setup. If an external pull request is used with the one-workflow setup, unfortunately, the workflow and all the jobs in the workflow succeed, but the comment hasn't been made. These messages are in the action's step:

Notice: HTTP Request: GET https://api.github.com/user "HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"
Notice: HTTP Request: GET https://api.github.com/repos/openedx/openedx-events/issues/[30](https://github.com/openedx/openedx-events/actions/runs/7467415648/job/20320880894#step:8:32)0/comments "HTTP/1.1 200 OK"
Notice: Adding new comment
Notice: HTTP Request: POST https://api.github.com/repos/openedx/openedx-events/issues/300/comments "HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden"
Notice: Cannot post comment. This is probably because this is an external PR, so it's expected. Ensure you have an additional `workflow_run` step configured as explained in the documentation (or alternatively, give up on PR comments for external PRs).
Notice: Ending action

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor Author

robrap commented Jan 19, 2024

  1. This is the PR that I think @nedbat was working on: Remove codecov, replace with python-coverage-comment-action openedx/openedx-events#300
  2. I'm moving this back to No Status.
  3. I think we may need to reassess if this is still a quick win, and also who we can get to resolve this? Since we don't own openedx-events, maybe we can convert this to an openedx-events issue and see if they will resolve?

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor Author

robrap commented Jan 19, 2024

Status Update: We think that Ned's comment above about the need for two github actions is what needs to be worked on, and the linked PR that was closed just used the single action.

@feanil: Is this something that can be added to the Maintenance Working Group?

@feanil
Copy link

feanil commented Jan 19, 2024

Yes, but I'm not sure how it will be prioritized at the moment.

@robrap
Copy link
Contributor Author

robrap commented Jan 26, 2024

@feanil: FYI: @timmc-edx will be looking into fixing #437, which may be useful to the Maintenance WG for reviewing errors across repos.

@jristau1984
Copy link

Closing due to inactivity and not owning this repo. The team has done what it can for the codecov issue, and now the community will complete the effort.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants