coverallsapp / coverallsapp/github-action
Jest Coverage vs Coverals
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 520
- Forks
- 78
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I have a project that shows the coverage of 72%:
But jest stats in the console shows 75%
-----------|---------|----------|---------|---------|--------------------- File | % Stmts | % Branch | % Funcs | % Lines | Uncovered Line #s -----------|---------|----------|---------|---------|--------------------- All files | 75.81 | 62.67 | 86.09 | 76.72 | index.js | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | parser.js | 75.77 | 62.67 | 85.93 | 76.68 | ...9-6950,7065-7069 -----------|---------|----------|---------|---------|---------------------
Why there is such a difference? Is this a bug?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reproducing the Jest coverage output and comparing it with the Coveralls result for index.js and parser.js. Check the coverage data consumed by the GitHub Action and determine whether the difference comes from the reports or the action; done means the cause is identified and documented.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript
- Domain
- testing-qa
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100