fastruby / skunk

A SkunkScore Calculator for Ruby Code -- Find the most complicated code without test coverage!
https://www.fastruby.io/blog/code-quality/intruducing-skunk-stink-score-calculator.html
MIT License
505 stars 25 forks source link

Refactor main workflow #91

Closed JuanVqz closed 2 years ago

JuanVqz commented 2 years ago

I will abide by the code of conduct.

codecov[bot] commented 2 years ago

Codecov Report

Merging #91 (da2cdd7) into main (a8f80af) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is n/a.

:exclamation: Current head da2cdd7 differs from pull request most recent head 9cd58d7. Consider uploading reports for the commit 9cd58d7 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #91   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.26%   98.26%           
=======================================
  Files          25       25           
  Lines         462      462           
=======================================
  Hits          454      454           
  Misses          8        8           

:mega: Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

arielj commented 2 years ago

@JuanVqz the errors with Rails 3.x seem to be that skunk has a restriction for Ruby <= 3.1.0 and the setup-ruby action is installing 3.1.1 in both cases. So something is wrong in the stup that installs 3.1.1 for 3.0, and also the restriction of <= 3.1.0 seems to be too restrictive for 3.1.

image

JuanVqz commented 2 years ago

@JuanVqz the errors with Rails 3.x seem to be that skunk has a restriction for Ruby <= 3.1.0 and the setup-ruby action is installing 3.1.1 in both cases. So something is wrong in the stup that installs 3.1.1 for 3.0, and also the restriction of <= 3.1.0 seems to be too restrictive for 3.1.

image

@arielj you are right, thank you

JuanVqz commented 2 years ago

this test is failing but I'm not able to find why since in my local env it is passing within ruby 2.5, 3.0 and 3.1 if somebody has been seen it before or has any clue, it could be helpful.

NOTE: code below shows the churn_times_cost and the churn don't match

Finished in 0.303586s, 75.7611 runs/s, 105.4068 assertions/s.

  1) Failure:
RubyCritic::AnalysedModule::#to_hash#test_0001_returns a hash with all the attributes and values [/home/runner/work/skunk/skunk/test/lib/skunk/rubycritic/analysed_module_test.rb:71]:
--- expected
+++ actual
@@ -1 +1 @@
-{:file=>"samples/rubycritic/analysed_module.rb", :skunk_score=>58.88, :churn_times_cost=>2.94, :churn=>5, :cost=>0.59, :coverage=>0.0}
+{:file=>"samples/rubycritic/analysed_module.rb", :skunk_score=>58.88, :churn_times_cost=>0.59, :churn=>1, :cost=>0.59, :coverage=>0.0}