starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Integrate code test coverage reports into CI pipeline #2792

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 18:22:12 +01:00 by adam · 1 comment
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:12 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @lampwins on GitHub (Aug 7, 2019).

Proposed Changes

I would like to add code coverage reporting into our CI pipeline. We would have the option of having the pipeline fail if coverage does not meet a defined percentage. I don't think we would necessarily want to do this from day one, but down the road, it will become an option.

For now, I think the simplest way to do this is to use coverage.py which has some support from the Django project.

Justification

Coverage reports aid in a number of testing metrics, but notably, they will help us quantify areas of the codebase which lack adequate testing.

There is no additional development, runtime, or performance hit from implementing this. It is simply an additional stage added to our CI (Travis) pipeline.

Originally created by @lampwins on GitHub (Aug 7, 2019). <!-- NOTE: This type of issue should be opened only by those reasonably familiar with NetBox's codebase and interested in contributing to its development. Describe the proposed change(s) in detail. --> ### Proposed Changes I would like to add code coverage reporting into our CI pipeline. We would have the option of having the pipeline fail if coverage does not meet a defined percentage. I don't think we would necessarily want to do this from day one, but down the road, it will become an option. For now, I think the simplest way to do this is to use [coverage.py](https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/v4.5.x/) which has some support from the Django project. <!-- Provide justification for the proposed change(s). --> ### Justification Coverage reports aid in a number of testing metrics, but notably, they will help us quantify areas of the codebase which lack adequate testing. There is no additional development, runtime, or performance hit from implementing this. It is simply an additional stage added to our CI (Travis) pipeline.
adam added the status: acceptedtype: housekeeping labels 2025-12-29 18:22:12 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 18:22:12 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 18:22:13 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Aug 15, 2019):

Implemented in develop-2.7

@lampwins commented on GitHub (Aug 15, 2019): Implemented in `develop-2.7`
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label status: accepted type: housekeeping
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#2792
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?