Undo the gate to do pure go test#1905
Conversation
Note this would mean the checked in .gen.go files and the checked in .pb.go files can go out of sync and will not be tested for correctness.
f040376 to
00b2e2d
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1905 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.16% 81.19% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 186 191 +5
Lines 18883 19455 +572
==========================================
+ Hits 15327 15796 +469
- Misses 3125 3197 +72
- Partials 431 462 +31
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
/lgtm |
|
/retest |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ayj, ZackButcher Assign the PR to them by writing The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:You can indicate your approval by writing |
|
why? |
|
read the test #infra conversation.
…On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Kuat ***@***.***> wrote:
why?
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1905 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK6xEyBqlvoWEqOZo7N2jMeuVLa0xCVnks5s7Kh_gaJpZM4QuM4Z>
.
--
*Thanks,*
*-SG*
|
|
do we do codecov with bazel now? |
|
I think we are only doing linter and fmt; no codecov.
https://github.com/istio/istio/blob/master/prow/istio-presubmit.sh
…On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Kuat ***@***.***> wrote:
do we do codecov with bazel now?
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1905 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK6xE0KCs6H2vRybx7DCt3yTph3kI3Guks5s7LM3gaJpZM4QuM4Z>
.
--
*Thanks,*
*-SG*
|
|
huh, that's a regression. last time i checked, bazel still can't do codecov for go, so we had to run |
|
can we do bazel_to_go and then do codecov ? that should work right ?
…On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Kuat ***@***.***> wrote:
huh, that's a regression. last time i checked, bazel still can't do
codecov for go, so we had to run go test anyways. it's not good if we
collect wrong coverage, too.
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1905 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AK6xExJt-3XCXq1gVCsVBdlmPFUVILDgks5s7LQ5gaJpZM4QuM4Z>
.
--
*Thanks,*
*-SG*
|
|
yes that would work, but it's cleaner to use checked in sources rather than do symlink voodoo to replace the checked in sources with generated sources. |
Note this would mean the checked in .gen.go files and the checked in .pb.go files can go out of sync and will not be tested for correctness.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Undo the gate to do pure
go testWhich issue this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close that issue when PR gets merged): fixes #Special notes for your reviewer:
Release note: