dopry
commented
7 years ago There are number of services that can provide code coverage.
I really like codecov for code coverage. The UI is pretty good for digging into and exploring your code coverage. The UX is nice in that it makes drilldown simple and quick.
I don't really like their UX for displaying code coverage, it's a long list that is sort of hard to navigate. They have some high level metrics like 'GPA' and issues they point out. I don't really know what GPA means it isn't very intuitive to me. They produce a long list of issues, that are like minor code smell items, but arent' really super critical. I think it would tend to send people off to solve problems that don't really help us much from a functional or process standpoint at this juncture.
[Coveralls]() coveralls was kind of slow and laggy, i couldn't get it to pick up the netlify repo. so nevermind. They got their half hour.
If I had a pick I'd go with codecov.
I also made some PRs on my fork just to demonstrate how some of the codechecks look.
Codecov with commenting not recommended, too verbose. Codecov without commenting, and reduced testing Codecov without commenting, and neutral testing
- Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
Feature
- What is the current behavior?
There is no code coverage.
- What is the expected behavior?
When I submit a PR and travis runs the tests, code coverage is checked and ensures that overall code coverage has not gone down.