Document GitLab CI integration #405
Conversation
|
cc @mike-kfed |
|
Hrmm... CI tells me I made a spelling mistake, but not where. And I'm not seeing it. I added that note about report size limits |
|
looks like the markdown lint fails: seems like tidy.sh runs all checks no matter what and returns an error code if any of them failed. |
|
Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed the trailing whitespace, but left the empty line as is - it's there on purpose, and I'm explicitly using GitHub Flavored Markdown here. Which, I'm not sure that I should. In the meantime, I was working on my project using these coverage reports, and can now confirm - they are displayed correctly, although it is only a line-based report. Overall, I'm fine with how it is now. |
932a369 to
67a45bf
Compare
|
just fyi, I recently made my tools for working around gitlab limitations installable with |
|
@mike-kfed That's great. I'm would accept a PR that adds a mention of your tool after this PR is merged. |
|
@taiki-e I'm kinda confused with your workflow right now. Do I need to do anything? |
|
CI failure is rustc bug (rust-lang/rust#135235) fixed today. I just re-ran CI and will merge this PR in after it passes. |
rendered view
As discussed in #398 , this documents how to integrate
cargo-llvm-covwith GitLab CI.As of now, there's several things missing to be resolved, but I wanted to open the PR as a starting point. For now, this is a draft.
Coverage rendering
This I will do soon, but due to the way GitLab renders only diffed files in MRs/PRs, I did not have an opportunity to test.
Splitting
While it's generally out of scope to describe the whole issue, adding a single sentence mention with a link to GitLab's documentation will probably be the right call.
Which coverage in summary
For now, the regex I'm using will use region coverage - I felt it'd be the most accurate, but I can just as easily extract function or line coverage.
Closes #398