-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 68
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Coveralls shows 0% coverage for a matrix CI workflow on GitHub #536
Comments
PS: Is there an option to optimistically merge all coverage data for platform-specific code branches or would coveralls do this for me automatically? :) |
I vaguely remember adding a Line 422 in 79bbab1
I'm afraid I don't have any answers for your questions. If you could explore and improve the docs, that would be great. |
I added the |
It's very much possible that the order is important. If you could debug this that'd be great! |
Here is one of the erroneously calculated builds: https://coveralls.io/builds/40758673 However, all other current builds look identically. Note that the CI passes on GitHub and the local TestRunner in my image attests me a 50% coverage. In particular, note that in the past™ it already had worked: https://coveralls.io/builds/40745486
In that earlier build, I had fail-fast enabled and some jobs failing, but could this make a difference?
Does smalltalkCI handle parallel runs or do I have to use the
coverallsapp
action manually as described in the docs?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: