codecov[bot]
commented
1 year ago Codecov Report
Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.06 :warning:
Comparison is base (
5573e7b) 100.00% compared to head (9f3477e) 99.94%.:exclamation: Current head 9f3477e differs from pull request most recent head deddfaf. Consider uploading reports for the commit deddfaf to get more accurate results
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #87 +/- ## =========================================== - Coverage 100.00% 99.94% -0.06% =========================================== Files 28 28 Lines 1796 1795 -1 =========================================== - Hits 1796 1794 -2 - Misses 0 1 +1 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/mrc-ide/rrq/pull/87?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mrc-ide) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [R/heartbeat.R](https://codecov.io/gh/mrc-ide/rrq/pull/87?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mrc-ide#diff-Ui9oZWFydGJlYXQuUg==) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [R/rrq\_controller.R](https://codecov.io/gh/mrc-ide/rrq/pull/87?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mrc-ide#diff-Ui9ycnFfY29udHJvbGxlci5S) | `99.79% <100.00%> (-0.21%)` | :arrow_down: | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mrc-ide). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=mrc-ide):umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
This will get expanded once we get support for retrying tasks, but provides the context for that.
I've also fixed a weird bug that I thought we had an issue for (but can't find) where task_result on jobs that were lost via worker death and separate process death were not the same - now we always return an rrq_task_error