From: Glen Fernandes (glen.fernandes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-04-13 23:14:20
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:21 PM Edward Diener wrote:
> On 4/13/2020 1:17 PM, Glen Fernandes via Boost wrote:
> > Edward, are you referring to Boost libraries where a maintainer has
> > specifically chosen to have Code Coverage part of the CI? Or are there
> > libraries where the maintainer has not made this decision but their
> > libraries CI automatically involve coverage because they use some
> > shared CI configuration (boost-ci)?
> I am just creating a valid PR for a Boost library. How that library uses
> code coverage is not my problem. I just do not want the validity of a PR
> being affected by how code coverage works for a library. I do realize
> that Github still allows a maintainer to merge a PR even when some CI
> testing fails. I just do not want code coverage, rather than correctness
> of code, determining whether a PR is merged or not.
Understood. I don't believe you're going to find yourself in this
situation. i.e. I cannot imagine any maintainer is going to reject
your pull request just because a red light on a CI does not turn green
due to code coverage.
> I am certainly not
> going to change a correct PR based on a code coverage report
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk