feat: Github action integrated with codecov #632

satya7289 · 2020-07-29T19:51:23Z

Description

Integrate codecov to the portal, so that we are able to check the code coverage of the portal. For this, I choose Github action(as suggested by @SanketDG) and also use github action to CI/CD and remove Travis ci.

Fixes #631

Type of Change:

Delete irrelevant options.

Code
Quality Assurance
Documentation

Code/Quality Assurance Only

Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
This change requires a documentation update (software upgrade on readme file)
New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality pre-approved by mentors)

How Has This Been Tested?

We are able to see the codecov report's on the PR and also we can see the checks of github.

Checklist:

Delete irrelevant options.

My PR follows the style guidelines of this project
I have performed a self-review of my own code or materials
I have commented my code or provided relevant documentation, particularly in hard-to-understand areas

Code/Quality Assurance Only

My changes generate no new warnings

codecov-commenter · 2020-07-29T19:54:42Z

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (develop@9f35743). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             develop     #632   +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage           ?   89.49%           
==========================================
  Files              ?       49           
  Lines              ?     2693           
  Branches           ?        0           
==========================================
  Hits               ?     2410           
  Misses             ?      283           
  Partials           ?        0

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 9f35743...c860727. Read the comment docs.

SanketDG

Looks good except for that one tiny question!

systers_portal/systers_portal/settings/testing.py

.github/workflows/main.yml

systers_portal/systers_portal/settings/testing.py

.github/workflows/main.yml

SanketDG · 2020-08-19T19:40:07Z

@satya7289 Do you want me to pick this up?

SanketDG

Looks good, can you fix the conflicts and integrate #580's changes?

satya7289 · 2020-08-20T16:28:06Z

Looks good, can you fix the conflicts and integrate #580's changes?

It would be great if that pr is merged after this PR. Any way I 'll update this according.

SanketDG · 2020-08-20T18:08:58Z

systers_portal/systers_portal/settings/testing.py

-        'PASSWORD': config('DB_PASSWORD'),
-        'HOST': config('DB_HOST', default='localhost'),
-        'PORT': config('DB_PORT', default=5432, cast=int),
+        'NAME': config('TEST_DB_NAME', default='systersdb'),


Question: why not keep the same names?

So basically the same names for beth dev and testing, is that causing issues?

Because I wanted to keep the test DB and main DB different. Actually, This TEST_DB is required for only Github's action databases.
However, This TEST_DB must be empty on the dev environment for running test suits locally.
@SanketDG

I understand but this has no effect https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.1/topics/testing/overview/#the-test-database

I am pretty sure the config involved is wrong, I had raised the issue before in a weekly session.

Whatever name you supply, test_ will be prepended.

Which config are you thinking wrong..! TEST_DB or anything else?

We can even use the SQLite database for testing purpose. If we use SQLite then no need to use configure extra services for PostgreSQL in Github Actions...!

TEST_DB yes!

There is a reason why Django uses the same engine by default, I'd like to use the same database as used for dev (unless we will have to go through a lot of obstacles), as there is no actual significant improvement to use a different database, but lot's of things can go wrong (databases have discrepancies between them)

What do you think?

Please look at now, I have updated with SQLite testing DB. SQLite is a default database for Django.
I think there should no problem with using SQLite for testing purposes as far I know Django doesn't depend on which DB are you using.
Please let me know if anything went wrong if I use SQLite as testing DB.

Well, I am not finding a good reason to go for such a discrepancy of not using the same database.

I will be happy to merge this though.

Also, can you squash your commits to be the actual issues you worked on (Github Actions and 3.8 update), otherwise I will just squash into one commit

Squashing to 1 commit will be fine.

SanketDG · 2020-08-22T15:29:14Z

systers_portal/meetup/tests/test_forms.py

        self.assertFalse(form.is_valid())
        self.assertTrue(form.errors['time'],
                        ["Time should not be a time that has already passed."])
-        self.assertRaises(ValidationError, form.clean_time())


I don't understand any of the changes here, and please don't remove a whole test check.

If you check deeply then you come to know that these are test cases for RequestMeetupFormTestCase not AddMeetupFormTestCase that's why I am adding the RequestMeetupForm instead of AddMeetupForm Actually whole test cases are wrong..

Also, Here this line self.assertRaises(ValidationError, form.clean_time()) is not needed because in the clean_time method time is used for return ValidationError(however, here time is None because on adding requestmeetup due to clean_time method time will be None). You can check these phenomenon by printing form.clean().

Thank you for diving deep into this! Can you please open an issue about this?

SanketDG

LGTM 🎉

Thank you for showing patience here @satya7289, this was a relatively large change

satya7289 force-pushed the Test-Codecov branch from a44541e to b96a313 Compare July 29, 2020 20:04

SanketDG previously approved these changes Aug 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

systers_portal/systers_portal/settings/testing.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

SanketDG reviewed Aug 3, 2020

View reviewed changes

.github/workflows/main.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

satya7289 dismissed SanketDG’s stale review via b7d6528 August 4, 2020 16:25

ritwickraj78 reviewed Aug 7, 2020

View reviewed changes

satya7289 force-pushed the Test-Codecov branch from dfe919a to ffa27d9 Compare August 20, 2020 07:59

satya7289 requested a review from SanketDG August 20, 2020 08:10

SanketDG suggested changes Aug 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

satya7289 closed this Aug 20, 2020

satya7289 reopened this Aug 20, 2020

satya7289 and others added 6 commits August 20, 2020 22:13

feat: Codecov

d3487e5

feat: Update readme

137b2a6

feat: Update for 3.8

d388010

feat: Update Testcases for python- 3.8

4bf562c

feat: Fix flake error

0dc2fdf

feat: Update for .env variables

1cd8ac7

satya7289 force-pushed the Test-Codecov branch from a40fd7f to 1cd8ac7 Compare August 20, 2020 17:08

feat: Update for .env variables

d563a07

satya7289 requested a review from SanketDG August 20, 2020 17:26

SanketDG requested a review from ritwickraj78 August 20, 2020 17:58

SanketDG reviewed Aug 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

feat: Use SQLite for test db

c860727

SanketDG reviewed Aug 22, 2020

View reviewed changes

SanketDG approved these changes Aug 22, 2020

View reviewed changes

SanketDG merged commit 6e6e139 into anitab-org:develop Aug 22, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: Github action integrated with codecov #632

feat: Github action integrated with codecov #632

satya7289 commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SanketDG left a comment

SanketDG commented Aug 19, 2020

SanketDG left a comment

satya7289 commented Aug 20, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SanketDG Aug 20, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020

satya7289 Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020

SanketDG left a comment

feat: Github action integrated with codecov #632

feat: Github action integrated with codecov #632

Conversation

satya7289 commented Jul 29, 2020 • edited Loading

Description

Type of Change:

How Has This Been Tested?

Checklist:

codecov-commenter commented Jul 29, 2020 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

SanketDG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SanketDG commented Aug 19, 2020

SanketDG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

satya7289 commented Aug 20, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

SanketDG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

satya7289 commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

codecov-commenter commented Jul 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

satya7289 commented Aug 20, 2020 •

edited

Loading

SanketDG Aug 22, 2020 •

edited

Loading