Test codecov

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

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

Project coverage is 81.31%. Comparing base (045b419) to head (55a227b).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #2922 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 81.31% 81.31% ======================================= Files 48 48 Lines 37856 37856 Branches 7295 7295 ======================================= Hits 30782 30782 Misses 5653 5653 Partials 1421 1421 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tskit-dev/tskit/pull/2922/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [c-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tskit-dev/tskit/pull/2922/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev) | `86.21% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [lwt-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tskit-dev/tskit/pull/2922/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev) | `80.78% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [python-c-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tskit-dev/tskit/pull/2922/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev) | `67.71% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [python-tests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tskit-dev/tskit/pull/2922/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev) | `98.96% <0.00%> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=tskit-dev#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

[jeromekelleher]

Hmm, this really doesn't seem to be working well. I'm wondering if codecov is really helping here, or we should just ditch it and try something else. It'll be a lot of hassle switching though, as it 's quite complicated with all the different C, Python etc tests.

[benjeffery]

Hmm, this really doesn't seem to be working well. I'm wondering if codecov is really helping here, or we should just ditch it and try something else. It'll be a lot of hassle switching though, as it 's quite complicated with all the different C, Python etc tests.

It seems to have made the report here ok - I'll add another PR with some additional lines to see that it detects coverage correctly.

[nspope]

The problems we're seeing may be because of #2915 coming from a fork? The issues linked to here are largely concerned with this case.

[benjeffery]

The problems we're seeing may be because of #2915 coming from a fork? The issues linked to here are largely concerned with this case.

All my PRs come from a fork too.

[jeromekelleher]

Is there something we can do to unplug progress here? Would we be better off turning off codecov for the moment so that in-flight PRs can be viewed and merged?

[nspope]

If it's only affecting my PRs, then it must be something on my end. I'm not sure what to do, though -- if I check coverage locally, it's 100% on the diff (and, codecov agreed with that before it started bugging out a few days ago).

It could be that if someone else (myb with push access to this repo) copies #2915 into a new branch and makes a PR, everything would work? I'll ask @petrelharp

[petrelharp]

I'm trying in #2927, fyi

[petrelharp]

Nope - it's broken for me, too.

Note that to get codecov to actually run I needed to make a new commit (seems codecov was cacheing the commit hash, since it didn't re-run even though the tests did).

Note also that what it's using for base looks not right: I'm currently unsure what all this means, though.

[benjeffery]

Is there something we can do to unplug progress here? Would we be better off turning off codecov for the moment so that in-flight PRs can be viewed and merged?

Note that codecov has never been a requirement for mergify to merge PRs. This still needs fixing, but it doesn't prevent a merge/