Skip to content

Add multi-platform coverage merging via Coveralls and Codacy#34

Merged
gb119 merged 6 commits intomainfrom
copilot/add-coveralls-support-to-pytest
Feb 10, 2026
Merged

Add multi-platform coverage merging via Coveralls and Codacy#34
gb119 merged 6 commits intomainfrom
copilot/add-coveralls-support-to-pytest

Conversation

Copy link
Contributor

Copilot AI commented Feb 10, 2026

Platform-specific modules (Windows, Darwin) showed 0% coverage in reports generated only from Linux CI. With tests running on 3 OS × 5 Python versions, coverage data exists but wasn't being aggregated.

Changes

Coverage Integration

  • Upload coverage to Coveralls with parallel: true from all 15 matrix jobs, merge via coveralls-finish job
  • Upload coverage to Codacy from all matrix jobs with per-job flag names ({os}-py{version})
  • Generate both XML (Codecov/Codacy) and LCOV (Coveralls) formats in pytest

Dependencies & Configuration

  • Add coveralls>=3.0 to dev dependencies
  • Add coverage badges (Coveralls, Codacy) to README
  • Exclude coverage.lcov in .gitignore

Result

Coverage reports now reflect actual multi-platform execution. Platform-specific code paths that only run on Windows/Darwin CI jobs are properly tracked and merged into overall coverage metrics.

Original prompt

Looking at the test coverage issue listed in CODE_REVIEW.md, one thing flagged is that the Windows specific paths is not tested on Linux - however, the pytest action does test the package on all platforms, so we do in fact have test coverage for Dawrin and Windows specific things. To allow accurate reporting of test coverage, can we add coveralls support to the pytest action and then ensure we somehow merge the coverage reports from all the platforms to get an accurate view of the actual test coverage.


💬 We'd love your input! Share your thoughts on Copilot coding agent in our 2 minute survey.

Copilot AI and others added 5 commits February 10, 2026 12:06
Co-authored-by: gb119 <4428426+gb119@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gb119 <4428426+gb119@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gb119 <4428426+gb119@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gb119 <4428426+gb119@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: gb119 <4428426+gb119@users.noreply.github.com>
Copilot AI changed the title [WIP] Add Coveralls support to pytest action for accurate coverage reporting Add multi-platform coverage merging via Coveralls and Codacy Feb 10, 2026
Copilot AI requested a review from gb119 February 10, 2026 12:17
@codacy-production
Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Feb 10, 2026

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
Report missing for 1773c2f1
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (1773c2f) Report Missing Report Missing Report Missing
Head commit (89170d6) 291 271 93.13%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#34) 0 0 ∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Footnotes

  1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct.

@gb119 gb119 marked this pull request as ready for review February 10, 2026 12:27
@gb119 gb119 merged commit 9b008c4 into main Feb 10, 2026
16 of 17 checks passed
@gb119 gb119 deleted the copilot/add-coveralls-support-to-pytest branch February 10, 2026 12:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants