feat: merge lcov reports from sharded test runs
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Idoneità per principianti
- 42/100
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Stato di attività
- Attiva
- Stack tecnologico
- dart
- Ambito
- cli, testing-qa
Direzione di ricerca
Start in lib/src/cli/test_cli_runner.dart, reading CoverageMetrics.fromLcovRecords and MinCoverageNotMet to understand the existing coverage parsing and reporting flow. Review the sharding behavior from #1707 and the requirements for combining records, path handling, configuration, and output. Done means a command merges multiple lcov files, applies the existing coverage checks and very_good.yaml fallback, writes the result, and includes the requested documentation and CI updates.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
Description
#1707 adds --shard-index and --total-shards to very_good test and very_good dart test, so a suite can be split across CI runners with a strategy.matrix. Sharding and --min-coverage don't mix well yet. Each shard runs only part of the suite, so its coverage/lcov.info reflects only the code that slice touches. With --collect-coverage-from all, _enhanceLcovWithUntestedFiles also adds every file the shard never loaded at 0%. A shard's percentage is always well below the real number, and a threshold check on it fails healthy builds.
#1707 handles this by rejecting an explicit --min-coverage when sharding. The error tells users to collect coverage per shard with --coverage, merge the lcov reports, and enforce the threshold once in a separate job. The CLI has no way to do those last two steps today, so teams have to reach for lcov or a custom script. A threshold set in very_good.yaml is also ignored silently when sharding, so teams that rely on it lose enforcement without being told.
This issue proposes that the CLI merge the shard reports and run the coverage checks on the merged result.
A possible shape:
jobs:
test:
strategy:
matrix:
shard: [1, 2, 3]
steps:
- run: very_good test --coverage --shard-index ${{ matrix.shard }} --total-shards 3
- uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
with:
name: coverage-${{ matrix.shard }}
path: coverage/lcov.info
coverage:
needs: test
steps:
- uses: actions/download-artifact@v4
- run: very_good test coverage merge coverage-*/lcov.info --min-coverage 100
The command name and placement are open for discussion. It could live under very_good test or as a new top-level command.
Things the merge has to get right:
- Union hits, don't average percentages. A line counts as covered when any shard hit it. For each source file, sum the per-line hit counts across reports and recompute totals from the merged lines.
- 0% records from
--collect-coverage-from allmust merge cleanly. A file one shard added at 0% and another shard actually covered should end up covered. - Path consistency. Reports from different runners have to agree on each file's path. If
SF:entries can be absolute and runners check out to different directories, paths need normalizing relative to the project root. - Reuse the existing checks.
--min-coverage,--exclude-coverageand--show-uncoveredshould behave exactly as they do in a normal run.CoverageMetrics.fromLcovRecordsandMinCoverageNotMetinlib/src/cli/test_cli_runner.dartalready do the parsing and reporting, so the merge only needs to feed them a combined set of records. - Fall back to
very_good.yaml. The merge step should pick up the threshold fromvery_good.yamlthe same wayvery_good testdoes, which closes the silent-skip gap for sharded runs. - Write the merged report to disk so it can still go to Codecov or be rendered with
genhtml.
#804 asked for something close to this for multi-package apps run with -r, where each package writes its own lcov file. It was closed without a merge feature. The same merge logic would serve both cases, so it's worth designing with both in mind.
Requirements
- A command merges two or more lcov files into a single report.
- Hit counts are combined per file and per line, so a line covered in any input counts as covered.
-
--min-coverage,--exclude-coverageand--show-uncoveredwork on the merged report and match the output of a normalvery_good testrun. - The minimum coverage threshold falls back to
very_good.yamlwhen the flag is not passed. - The merged report is written to a configurable output path.
- The
--min-coverageusage error added in #1707 points to the new command. - Docs describe the sharded CI workflow from start to finish.
- All CI/CD checks are passing.
- There is no drop in the test coverage percentage.
Additional Context
- #1707: sharding PR that rejects
--min-coverageand suggests merging reports - #1538: original sharding request
- #804: earlier request for a single coverage report across multi-package runs
- Lingua principale
- Dart
- Stelle
- 2.4k
- Fork
- 244
- Merge medio
- 21h 32m
- PR unite (30g)
- 33
Preparare l'ambiente
- Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
- Ha un modello di pull request
- Leggi la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli
-
feature
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 38/100
VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli#1695 · 2 commenti ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
feat(mcp): stream progress notifications for long-running toolsForse di nuovo libera @vgvbot l’ha presa 49 giorni fa e non c’è nessuna pull request aperta. Apertafeature
VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli#1616 · 1 commento · 1 assegnatario ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
feature
Difficoltà 4/5 3-5 giorni Idoneità per principianti 38/100
VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli#1363 · 4 commenti · 1 reazione ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
[CI - test_optimizer] GitHub Actions, Melos, very_good test lead sometimes to cache errorForse di nuovo libera @erickzanardo l’ha presa 343 giorni fa e non c’è nessuna pull request aperta. Apertabug p1
VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli#947 · 13 commenti · 15 reazioni · 3 assegnatari ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
feature p2
Difficoltà 5/5 Più di una settimana Idoneità per principianti 25/100
VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli#682 · 1 commento ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Tutte le issue di VeryGoodOpenSource/very_good_cli
Issue simili
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 85/100
genkit-ai/genkit-dart#507 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 4 giorni
-
infra: device lab team-android
Difficoltà 2/5 1-2 giorni Idoneità per principianti 68/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
component: genui P2 status: first-line-handled type: bug
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 90/100
a2ui-project/a2ui#2854 · 1 commento ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 78/100
google/webcrypto.dart#419 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 4 giorni
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 88/100
fluttercommunity/chewie#971 ·