Open LeoniePhiline opened 7 months ago
Probably mouse trap! Why not just tarpaulin html output?
Thanks a lot for chiming in! :) Very welcome!
Why not just tarpaulin ...
I'm using cargo-llvm-cov
because of its support for nextest
. (See also https://github.com/xd009642/tarpaulin/issues/992)
I've made good experiences with LLVM coverage, making it my default.
... html output?
cargo llvm-cov nextest --html
is easily produced, but difficult to integrate. Which is making it only suitable for local testing, as HTML reports would need to be manually downloaded as CI artifacts and inspected.
I'd want this integrated in PRs. At least automated PR comments reporting uncovered lines. I am used to GitLab's great coverage integration based on Cobertura XML. (Edit: In combination with coverage ratio reports.)
I imagine that should be possible in GitHub, too, but I haven't investigated yet.
Upon a quick look, https://github.com/marketplace/actions/cobertura-report only appears to provide PR comments. What I'd like to see is coverage visualization in the diff - see GitLab link above.
The GitHub solutions aren't tightly integrated enough for my taste. The diff annotations are clunky and annoying:
The llvm-cov
HTML report per git ref could be published to GitHub pages, maybe. But I'd prefer to keep my efforts of reinventing the wheel to a minimum. :)
https://github.com/marketplace/actions/coverage-diff seems useful. Also https://github.com/marketplace/actions/code-coverage-report-difference.
Hm. There's already lots of reinvented wheels out there. I've "just" got to review them all, and their trustworthiness, and their feature sets and sigh ;)
I always thought GitHub was the "better" platform. Working on #9 taught me GitLab is really preferable. These actions on the marketplace are just as trashy as the rest of the JS/TS ecosystem. 😞
Maybe CodeCov free tier - or is that just another capitalist mouse trap?