Closed cpeeyush closed 2 years ago
18 tests ±0 17 :heavy_check_mark: ±0 41s :stopwatch: +3s 6 suites ±0 1 :zzz: ±0 6 files ±0 0 :x: ±0
Results for commit a1a858e6. ± Comparison against base commit 6af8b571.
:recycle: This comment has been updated with latest results.
:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (
feature/252-code-quality-tools@6af8b57
). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## feature/252-code-quality-tools #259 +/- ##
=================================================================
Coverage ? 69.04%
Complexity ? 13
=================================================================
Files ? 4
Lines ? 42
Branches ? 4
=================================================================
Hits ? 29
Misses ? 13
Partials ? 0
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.
I tested deriving a PR from this with a checkstyle violation, and that the run indeed fails: https://github.com/eclipse-dataspaceconnector/MinimumViableDataspace/runs/7837971765?check_suite_focus=true
It would have been useful to provide such a sample run as part of the PR.
Thanks @algattik, yeah good idea, I missed it. Now updated PR description with the failed run as you shared.
What this PR changes/adds
workflow failure due to checkstyle as an example: https://github.com/eclipse-dataspaceconnector/MinimumViableDataspace/runs/7837971765?check_suite_focus=true
Why it does that
Both Checkstyle and CodeQL are already in use in the EDC framework, so these tools are the natural choice in related projects like the Identity Hub as well.
Linked Issue(s)
Relates to https://github.com/agera-edc/MinimumViableDataspace/issues/252
Checklist
no-changelog
)