Add Codecov to GitHub Actions

[avinal]

Description

Adds Codecov GitHub Actions

References

#548 & #532

Tasklist

• Add test case(s)
• Ensure all CI builds pass
• Review and approve

[avinal]

Please don't worry about commits, I will squash them in a nice single commit :)

[mloskot]

For the records, the Codedov port to GitHub Actions has already been prototyped by @meshtag in #554

[avinal]

Hello @mloskot, I need some help now. I am not much experienced with codecov. But as much I know public repositories don't need tokens to upload reports.

The GitHub Actions is perfectly working. You can see the last run here: https://github.com/boostorg/gil/pull/564/checks?check_run_id=1971222975#step:6:1049

It is also being picked by Codecov, which is good

But for some reason, reports are not showing up. I don't know what else is missing.

[mloskot]

@avinal I'm afraid I have nothing helpful to offer. I had been struggling in the past with Codecov, https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/search?q=mloskot&type=issues, without having a slightest clue what was going wrong.

[avinal]

For the records, the Codedov port to GitHub Actions has already been prototyped by @meshtag in #554

meshtag missed a really important step that is to compile the library with a coverage flag. Then only you can run the codecov routine. (P.S, I missed it too initially 😅)

[avinal]

@avinal I'm afraid I have nothing helpful to offer. I had been struggling in the past with Codecov, https://github.com/codecov/codecov-bash/search?q=mloskot&type=issues, without having a slightest clue what was going wrong.

Ohh, I will try to solve this. 👍

[avinal]

Hello @mloskot,
It is all working now.

There are more things we may add:

• A codecov.yml to further customize reports (I did not notice any significant difference though)
• A codecov badge, needs to be added from your side

P.S - By no means it was a good-first-issue 😅

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #564 (755d1e9) into develop (0c0fe1a) will increase coverage by 0.78%.
The diff coverage is 97.93%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #564      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    77.81%   78.59%   +0.78%     
===========================================
  Files          110      117       +7     
  Lines         4367     4980     +613     
===========================================
+ Hits          3398     3914     +516     
- Misses         969     1066      +97     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
include/boost/gil/channel_algorithm.hpp	100.00% <ø> (ø)
include/boost/gil/algorithm.hpp	67.42% <25.00%> (-1.81%)	⬇️
include/boost/gil/rasterization/line.hpp	93.33% <93.33%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/histogram.hpp	97.88% <97.88%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/image_processing/diffusion.hpp	98.30% <98.30%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/image_processing/morphology.hpp	98.50% <98.50%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/color_base.hpp	98.49% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
include/boost/gil/color_convert.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/extension/histogram/std.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
include/boost/gil/extension/numeric/affine.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 75 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a8cb364...755d1e9. Read the comment docs.

[mloskot]

@avinal Awesome!

A codecov.yml to further customize reports (I did not notice any significant difference though)

AFAIR, my experience with this file was similar.

I sometimes used it to disable Codecov comment

I think we could experiment with the comment configuration to avoid unnecessary PR comments, e.g.

comment:
  layout: "diff"
  behavior: default
  require_changes: true # if true: only post the comment if coverage changes

A codecov badge, needs to be added from your side

We could add two badges to the statuses in the README:

• https://codecov.io/gh/boostorg/gil/branch/develop/graphs/badge.svg
• https://codecov.io/gh/boostorg/gil/branch/master/graphs/badge.svg

P.S - By no means it was a good-first-issue

Well, the difficulty was judge from the GIL point :-)

Kudos for your persistence!

[mloskot]

This looks very good. Thanks!

I'd like to merge it as it is.
If you'd like to apply any further tweaks, then I suggest to do it in new PRs

[avinal]

This looks very good. Thanks!

I'd like to merge it as it is.
If you'd like to apply any further tweaks, then I suggest to do it in new PRs

Ohh actually I was adding those two changes. I will open a new PR, no worries 😊. Thanks a lot

[mloskot]

Sorry for not synchronising our actions better. Please, do new PRs, thanks

[mloskot]

I incorrectly put Closes #565 in the commit message. It should read #548