search

eclipse / kiso-testing

https://kiso-testing.readthedocs.io/
Other
38 stars 42 forks source link

feat: junit report directory #413

Closed IliyanKordev closed 9 months ago

codecov[bot] commented 9 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (61e219e) 98.11% compared to head (1c3342e) 98.11%. Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #413 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 98.11% 98.11% ======================================= Files 80 80 Lines 6471 6487 +16 ======================================= + Hits 6349 6365 +16 Misses 122 122 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

sebastianpfischer commented 9 months ago

@Pog3k, if you merge it before I do, please squash the PR before

sebastianpfischer commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

IliyanKordev commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

Hello, the idea is to add feature to generate junit report at specific dir or with specific filename.

Pog3k commented 9 months ago

The coverage report is not generated correctly anymore

seems to be working again.. maybe some unittests failed in the past

sebastianpfischer commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

Hello, the idea is to add feature to generate junit report at specific dir or with specific filename.

Can you give me an example?

Pog3k commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

I think the confusing part is that --junit was just a flag in the past. To dont introduce a breaking change or an addtional flag the call now looks like this --junit=my.xml So Both calls are now valid pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit=my.xml pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit

Or what is still unclear ?

sebastianpfischer commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

I think the confusing part is that --junit was just a flag in the past. To dont introduce a breaking change or an addtional flag the call now looks like this --junit=my.xml So Both calls are now valid pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit=my.xml pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit

Or what is still unclear ?

This is actually cool but why not simply a -o like all the other tools do?

IliyanKordev commented 9 months ago

Sorry, I start reading the PR, I do not understand what you try to do. Could you please explain it to me?

I think the confusing part is that --junit was just a flag in the past. To dont introduce a breaking change or an addtional flag the call now looks like this --junit=my.xml So Both calls are now valid pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit=my.xml pykiso -c .\examples\dummy.yaml --junit Or what is still unclear ?

This is actually cool but why not simply a -o like all the other tools do?

Because, it is easier and more clear for the teams, without adding new arguments of pykiso