-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 925
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JRuby 9000 + TravisCI + Coveralls Erroneous Failure #3256
Comments
@jdantonio tangential to this bug report, in the future it's useful to gist some build output or embed the build output and relevant details into the GitHub issue itself. When triaging some old bugs (>1 year) weekend before last I ran into a lot of Travis build links that had since expired, which was most frustrating. |
@rtyler Thanks for the suggestion. I didn't think of that when I created this issue, but I can see why it's important for you. For completeness, I've post the relevant output here:
|
I haven't seen reliable coverage reports in In any case, two comments:
Cheers! |
@deivid-rodriguez Thank you for the feedback, but I don't believe I've clearly explained the issue. Please let me clarify. The problem isn't the code coverage value--it's the return code of 1. This causes the build to register as a failure even though all the tests passed. This wasn't a problem a few days ago. Up until last weekend the exit code was 0 and the build passed even when the code coverage value was completely wrong. This build here is an example (details below). Having a wrong code coverage value is minor. Having the build erroneously fail is a much bigger issue. For now I've setup my CI rake task to not report to Coveralls when running under JRuby 9000. That's the only way I can keep the build green. Thanks again!
|
Oh, I see. Sorry for the noise then! |
When running RSpec tests on Travis CI, JRuby 9000 will report 0.0% Coveralls code coverage. This causes Travis to register a failing build. An example can be seen here. This seems to have started happening this weekend.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: