[FOLIO-4572] Go workflow allows test-coverage location to be specifed - #173
Conversation
I think that we do not need the leading "target/" in the use of the environment variable that we see in commit ab11aef: that seems to be just modifying how `make` is run rather than being part of the GitHub Actions syntax.
|
OK, it looks like this is in decent shape. I'll run a build against it. |
|
Hmm, no, it still fails: https://github.com/folio-org/mod-reporting/actions/runs/35361903659/job/106296755084 I suspect the double quotes around |
|
Nope — I am still seeing
I'm all out of ideas in this area where I lack experience or expertise. Please advise. |
|
I spoke too soon, I'm now trying with explicit env-var expansion, |
|
All right, now we're getting somewhere! https://github.com/folio-org/mod-reporting/actions/runs/35361903659/job/106305485611 still fails, but this time it's in the "Run Sonar scan" section, with
That suggests to me that once this is brought within the @dcrossleyau Do you agree? |
This reverts commit 080ecd1. We no longer need it, since folio-org/.github#173 has been merged.
In Java and JS, it's conventional for the source code to be in a
srcdirectory and code-coverage information generated by tests to be insrc/coverage.*. But in Go, it’s convention for the bulk of the code to be in a directory named after the package it’s in — for example,reportingfor mod-reporting — so code-coverage information is inreporting/coverage.*.This PR extends the Go workflow to support an optional
coverage-pathparameter (defaulting to the existing hardwired value ofsrc/coverage.*), allowing modules that follow the Go directory layout convention to specify where the converage files are.(Also: if the files are missing, I think that should be an immediate hard error, rather than letting it slip past so that the subsequent SonarCloud Analysis phase fails, as in
Fix text expecations for root · folio-org/mod-reporting@d911062. Feel free to push back on that part if you disagree.)