FYI, Boost.Geometry is setup to use CircleCI and Coveralls. See the
readme:
https://github.com/boostorg/geometry
We're using CircleCI instead of TravisCI because the latter fails
due to the lack of memory needed to run the tests. The integration
of CircleCI with Coveralls is not as straightforward as it is for
TravisCI esspecially in the case of parallel testing. I was forced
to manually gather coverage info from parallel runs into one
VM/container, merge chunks manually and send with curl into
Coveralls. See the script if you're interested, it's based on the Antony Polukhin's TravisCI script:
https://github.com/boostorg/geometry/blob/develop/circle.yml
Currently I have to manually push the changes into my fork of
Boost.Geometry in order to run the tests. Obviously the tests for
pull requests for the main repository aren't run automatically
either.
So if you plan to enable the support for online CI services I'd
suggest to allow the maintainers to choose the services they prefer,
somehow.
Btw, I'm also playing with the performance regression testing on
CircleCI:
https://circleci.com/gh/awulkiew/benchmark-geometry-trigger/80#artifacts
https://circle-artifacts.com/gh/awulkiew/benchmark-geometry-trigger/80/artifacts/0/tmp/circle-artifacts.Nv98VEW/index.html
The above charts were generated by scripts, benchmarks and report
generator tool. It's not that this is natively supported by
CircleCI.
Regards,
Adam