Publish merged code coverage reports from GitHub Actions
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 4/5
- Tiempo estimado
- 3-5 días
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 44/100
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Claridad
- Bien especificado
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- csharp, github-actions
- Área
- ci-cd, devops, testing-qa
Línea de trabajo
Start with .github/workflows/tests.yml and trace the existing .NET 10 core and provider test jobs, their Microsoft.Testing.Platform configuration, and test result publishing. Design the coverage collection and merge flow around those jobs, keeping .NET 8 and .NET 9 runs out of the report; document tool versions, artifact locations, retention, local reproduction, and linked source copies. Done means PR and dev runs publish a merged HTML report and Markdown summary, preserve available coverage when a suite fails, and visibly diagnose missing coverage without adding a threshold.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Coverage reports currently require a local collection run. The existing GitHub Actions test jobs publish test results, but do not provide a merged coverage report that contributors can use to identify untested behavior or review changes.
This makes it harder to discover meaningful gaps in behavioral tests and keep coverage information current as the code changes.
Describe the solution you'd like
Add coverage collection and reporting to Eventuous's existing reusable test workflow, .github/workflows/tests.yml, for pull requests and pushes to dev.
- Collect coverage from the .NET 10 core and provider test jobs, preserving the current split between jobs and the existing .NET 8 and .NET 9 correctness tests.
- Use coverage collection tooling compatible with this repository's Microsoft.Testing.Platform runner.
- Upload uniquely named coverage artifacts from each job and merge them in a reporting job.
- Generate a browsable HTML report and a Markdown summary containing line and branch coverage, including an assembly breakdown.
- Upload the HTML report as a downloadable Actions artifact and publish the summary to
GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY. - Exclude test assemblies, SUT fixtures, and test helpers. Document how linked source files compiled into multiple production assemblies appear in the report, so an uncovered copy is not confused with wholly untested source.
- Pin coverage and reporting tool versions and document a local reproduction command.
Reuse the existing test executions where practical. Do not introduce an additional whole-solution test run or combine all provider containers on one runner.
The implementation should also meet these requirements:
- Pull request and
devworkflows publish a coverage summary and downloadable HTML report. - The report merges the intended .NET 10 core and provider suites, without counting the .NET 8 and .NET 9 runs again.
- Test failures continue to fail CI. Available coverage is retained when tests fail, and incomplete reports clearly identify missing suites.
- A successful test run with unexpectedly missing coverage produces a visible failure or diagnostic rather than silently publishing a complete-looking report.
- Report filters exclude non-production assemblies and explain linked source-file copies.
- Fork pull requests can produce reports without repository secrets or additional write permissions.
- Coverage artifacts are kept separate from test-result artifacts, or the test-result publisher is narrowed so it does not parse Cobertura XML as test results.
- Tool versions, artifact locations, retention, and local reproduction steps are documented.
- No minimum coverage percentage or coverage-based merge gate is introduced initially.
Describe alternatives you've considered
- Continue generating reports locally. This is useful for focused investigation, but requires manual work and does not provide a consistently available report for contributors.
- Add a separate whole-solution coverage run. This duplicates test execution and could recreate the resource and container-startup problems addressed by the current split test jobs.
- Use an external coverage service. That could provide historical trends and PR comparisons, but downloadable Actions artifacts and a job summary would meet the initial need without an additional service.
- Enforce coverage thresholds immediately. Establish a reliable baseline first, then consider thresholds or changed-line coverage in a separate issue.
Additional context
Validate a normal workflow run and a run with a failing test or missing suite artifact. Confirm that the summary matches the merged report and that existing test-result publishing still works.
Coverage should help locate missing behavioral tests and investigate regressions. A higher percentage alone is not a reason to add a test. Consider thresholds or changed-line coverage separately once the baseline is reliable.
Related coverage work:
- #605: HTTP command result mapping
- #606: Subscription partitioning
- #607: SQLite projections
- #608: Event-store dependency injection registrations
- #609: Tiered event store
- Lenguaje dominante
- C#
- Estrellas
- 512
- Forks
- 99
- Merge medio
- 5 d 6 h
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 5
Preparar el entorno
- Incluye un Dockerfile o un archivo de Docker Compose
- Sin plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de Eventuous/eventuous
-
MongoDB integration tests fail on newer GitHub Actions runner kernelsPosiblemente ocupada @nmummau la tomó hoy. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 74/100
Eventuous/eventuous#626 · 2 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
-
`dotnet format style --verify-no-changes` fails with naming violations and unnecessary importsPosiblemente ocupada @nmummau la tomó hoy. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 80/100
Eventuous/eventuous#624 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
-
Dificultad 5/5 Más de una semana Aptitud para principiantes 35/100
Eventuous/eventuous#627 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
-
SQL Server: `append_events` does not need the `@inserted` table variablePosiblemente ocupada @nmummau la tomó hace 6 días. Abierto
Dificultad 3/5 1-2 días Aptitud para principiantes 20/100
Eventuous/eventuous#619 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
-
SQL Server: stream reads do one key lookup per event, and `IDX_EventsStream` duplicates `UQ_StreamIdAndStreamPosition`Posiblemente ocupada @nmummau la tomó hace 6 días. Abierto
Dificultad 3/5 1-2 días Aptitud para principiantes 18/100
Eventuous/eventuous#618 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 7 días
Todos los issues de Eventuous/eventuous
Issues similares
-
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 66/100
gavin-wolfe/wolfden#104 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
[BUG] Still libmicrohttpd dependency is not removed properly from External-Dependency-Info.txt fileAbiertotype/bug
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
area:framework
Dificultad 1/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
nunit/docs#1262 · 3 comentarios ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
[辞書] かんそうりつ->乾燥率Abierto辞書
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 62/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
bug good first issue
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 76/100
thomhurst/TUnit#7201 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día