fix(ci): codecov report #412
Conversation
WalkthroughThe pull request modifies the GitHub Actions CI workflow configuration by updating the version of the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Poem
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🔭 Outside diff range comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
Line range hint
9-9: Consider adding minimum required permissionsThe empty permissions block (
permissions: {}) might be too restrictive for Codecov to function properly.Add the minimum required permissions:
-permissions: {} +permissions: + contents: read + pull-requests: write # Required for Codecov to comment on PRs
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
Line range hint
17-24: Optimize test execution setupThe current setup might be caching-unfriendly, leading to slower CI runs.
Consider adding caching for npm dependencies:
- name: Set up Node 18 uses: actions/setup-node@v4 with: node-version: 18 + cache: 'npm' - name: Install dependencies run: npm install
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
.github/workflows/ci.yml (1)
30-30:
Verify the coverage file path and generation
The workflow expects coverage at ./coverage/cobertura-coverage.xml, but there's no explicit command generating this file.
Let's verify the test script configuration:
Consider adding an explicit coverage generation step:
- name: Run tests and collect coverage
- run: npm run test
+ run: |
+ npm run test -- --coverage --coverageReporter=cobertura
+ mkdir -p coverage✅ Verification successful
Coverage configuration is correctly set up
The Jest configuration already includes Cobertura XML reporter and the path in the workflow matches the default Jest coverage output directory. No changes needed as:
coverageReportersincludes 'cobertura' format- Jest's default coverage output directory is
./coverage collectCoverageis enabled by default- The workflow's path
./coverage/cobertura-coverage.xmlmatches Jest's default output path
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if package.json contains coverage configuration
rg -A 5 '"test":\s*"' package.json
# Look for any Jest or other test framework configs
fd -e json -e js -e yaml -e yml -x rg -l 'coverageReporters|reporter.*cobertura'
Length of output: 230
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check Jest config for coverage settings
cat jest.config.js
# Check if coverage directory exists and what files it contains
fd -t d coverage
Length of output: 328
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #412 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 95.34% 94.23% -1.12%
==========================================
Files 11 12 +1
Lines 172 243 +71
Branches 24 33 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 164 229 +65
- Misses 8 13 +5
- Partials 0 1 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Pull Request
Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Issue Number: N/A
What is the new behavior?
generate and report code coverage in PR
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
Summary by CodeRabbit