Hi @jerrod, thanks for the clarification.
But still, the codecov configuration to automatically discover the base of the PR is producing misleading coverage reports.
As described in the other thread, we allow outdated PRs, but have the Merging the pull request with the current target branch revision jenkins configuration enabled.
Then, the tree that codecov finds, is a bit different:
Under this scenario, codecov is picking automatically “Base commit of little feature”. While this option might look right in some cases, this is producing wrong information for getting the code coverage of the Pull Request.
Why is wrong? Because it’s counting all the new tests added into the master branch in the meantime. So the coverage won’t measure the difference between “commit head” and the “Base commit of little feature”, but the coverage between the virtual commit and the “Base commit of little feature”. This means that an outdated branch doing nothing is going to increase the coverage in the same proportion as it was increased in master since it was opened.
What we want to do by picking ourselves a different base commit for the report, is compare with the actual head of master. This way, the report we see in the PR will represent actually the changes in the PR, and not the rest.
Cheers!