Open Adal3n3 opened 3 weeks ago
Example scenario:
I don't think today we can tell if this is directly responsible for failure, therefore - Suggestion:
Your project check has failed because your patch isn't fully covered. ⚠️ we've noticed your head and base commits have different numbers of coverage reports, this may be related to the failure of your project coverage check.
If we CAN say conclusively somehow in the future this is the root of the issue, we can go back to something like the below: "Your project check has failed because you have uploaded fewer coverage reports on this commit than your BASE commit. Please ensure you are uploading the same number of reports on the BASE and HEAD commits."
I think this is a good approach!
We can count # of sessions per flag and note specific discrepancies, and then maybe prod a user to check their CI run to ensure it uploaded the right number of reports.
Making a note: Current we do not know the different numbers of coverage reports on head and base commits, so we don't tell customers. Fortunately, we have @giovanni-guidini is working on getting the numbers.
❌ Check status: Your project check has failed because you have 5 coverage reports on HEAD commit (482a924) and 4 coverage reports on BASE commits (7acb879). Please ensure you upload the same number of reports on the BASE and HEAD commits.
Comparison is base (7acb879) compared to head (482a924) 92.47%.
CI failure scenarios:
PR check status message: Your project check has failed because you have not had an uploaded report on the BASE and HEAD commits, in the case of changes to a pull request. Please ensure uploading report on the BASE and HEAD.
Use-case: Project coverage
User configurable: no