codecov[bot]
commented
3 years ago Codecov Report
Merging #28 (edc88c4) into main (ebcef88) will increase coverage by
0.14%. The diff coverage is100.00%.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #28 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.71% 95.86% +0.14%
==========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 140 145 +5
==========================================
+ Hits 134 139 +5
Misses 6 6 | Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| src/Ignore/IgnoreRule.cs | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
|
| src/Ignore/ReplacerStash.cs | 98.52% <100.00%> (+0.09%) |
:arrow_up: |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact),ø = not affected,? = missing dataPowered by Codecov. Last update ebcef88...edc88c4. Read the comment docs.
This PR has
12quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of50to200lines is ideal for the best PR experience!Quantification details
``` Label : Extra Small Size : +12 -0 Percentile : 4.8% Total files changed: 3 Change summary by file extension: .cs : +12 -0 ``` > Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the [PullRequestQuantifier customizations](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/blob/main/docs/prquantifier-yaml.md).Why proper sizing of changes matters
Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean: - Fast and predictable releases to production: - Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer iterations. - Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times. - Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower: - Bugs are more likely to be detected. - Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted. - Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants: - Small portions can be assimilated better. - Better engineering practices are exercised: - Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems. - Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes. #### What can I do to optimize my changes - Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately - Create a context profile for your repo using the [context generator](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/releases) - Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the `Excluded` section from your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Only use the labels that matter to you, [see context specification](./docs/prquantifier-yaml.md) to customize your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Change your engineering behaviors - For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if: - Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead - Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR). #### How to interpret the change counts in git diff output - One line was added: `+1 -0` - One line was deleted: `+0 -1` - One line was modified: `+1 -1` (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion) - Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification) of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.Was this comment helpful? :thumbsup: :ok_hand: :thumbsdown: (Email) Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.