Fix of codecov components paths

[AlexVCaron]

Quick description

The regex for the library component is not working, the resulting coverage component is just empty.
...

Type of change

Check the relevant options.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

Provide data, screenshots, command line to test (if relevant)

We'll see on the coverage report that will be uploaded for this PR if it works or not

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project (run autopep8)
• I added relevant citations to scripts, modules and functions docstrings and descriptions
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I moved all functions from the script file (except the argparser and main) to scilpy modules
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 72.45%. Comparing base (14cb12f) to head (0718118).
⚠️ Report is 69 commits behind head on master.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (72.45%) is below the target coverage (75.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1245      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   71.96%   72.45%   +0.49%     
==========================================
  Files         293      293              
  Lines       25189    25185       -4     
  Branches     3528     3527       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits        18127    18249     +122     
+ Misses       5575     5444     -131     
- Partials     1487     1492       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
smoketests	69.63% <ø> (?)
unittests	13.11% <ø> (-58.85%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
Scripts	75.28% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
Library	69.10% <ø> (+1.07%)	⬆️

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[AlexVCaron]

Coverage split is working ! Go here and use the components dropdown to filter by them.

[EmmaRenauld]

It's nearly there!

When I select unittest, then I get a 0% coverage on src/cli, which overall decreases the percentage to 13%. It think that without this, we would see ~30%. Can we tell it to ignore the cli path for unittest ? Or is it too complicated?

[AlexVCaron]

I tried to have it only with the flags, not sure if it's possible though. I need to look further in the documentation of coverage, it's a bit of a pain.

But right now, you can get the percentages you want by using both flags and components to filter the coverage report. Here, I selected the unittest flag and the Library component :

[EmmaRenauld]

Also I just noticed that the numbers for the unittest in other files are good, but the numbers for the smoke test are the same as the total coverage from both.

If it can help you: Here are the numbers that I noted a few months ago for:

• dwi.operations: 79 with smoke, 72 with unit, 89 total
• dwi.utils: 55 with smoke, 91 with unit, 91 total
• reconst.bingham: 43 with smoke, 88 with unit, 94 total

[EmmaRenauld]

Maybe the reason that smoke tests have the total coverage is that here you don't do mv .coverage .coverage.unit?

[AlexVCaron]

Actually, the coverage report is also written in the .test_reports folder, so we only need to upload its content to coverage and it's sufficient.

I'm looking into the reports right now to find why we get those new numbers

[AlexVCaron]

Percentages seems good now ! I removed --cov-append in pytest.ini and it fixed it. It was using the default .coverage file that's created at the root of the repo by the unit tests run to seed the coverage report for smoke tests.

[EmmaRenauld]

I tried to have it only with the flags, not sure if it's possible though. I need to look further in the documentation of coverage, it's a bit of a pain.

But right now, you can get the percentages you want by using both flags and components to filter the coverage report. Here, I selected the unittest flag and the Library component :

Oh! That's what you told us yesterday, sorry!. That's ok for me, then!

[AlexVCaron]

I tried to have it only with the flags, not sure if it's possible though. I need to look further in the documentation of coverage, it's a bit of a pain.
But right now, you can get the percentages you want by using both flags and components to filter the coverage report. Here, I selected the unittest flag and the Library component :

Oh! That's what you told us yesterday, sorry!. That's ok for me, then!

Great, because it seems to be the only way to do it, beside duplicating coverage and pytest configurations. I don't think we want that 😅

[EmmaRenauld]

I'm really happy that this is done!

[arnaudbore]

GTG