Description Codecov is wrongly informing the coverage percentage on my project, Codecov As can be seen on it, the original source file has 100% coverage, but there is a strange copy of the same file from Travis where Codecov informs only 83.67%, giving the project and average of 91.84% The origina…

Hi Tom! I will do a new test! Thanks for your reply! To workaround this issue, I had added a rule to codecov.yml to ignore all files from Users/travis, that seems to be from Windows test. With the new Travis version 3.7.2 I will remove this rule and see how it goes.

Tested and confirmed that on 3.7.2 my workaround isn’t necessary anymore, since Codecov is not listing that additional copy anymore! Everything is nice again! Thanks @tom !

I also have an issue with wrong coverage percentage, I have a 100% coverage but Codecov give me a wrong percentage. But I use the bash script and Github actions. [image] Code coverage done right. Hosted coverage report highly integrated with GitHub, Bitbucket and GitLab. Awesome pull re…

@mikbry , it seems to me that HueSlider.jsx is not covered by your tests, and maybe this is the reason your total coverage is not 100% If this is not the case, post all the details I posted to make it easy to the Codecov team to analyze your issue, including commit SHAs, etc

@mikbry , you are seeing less than 100% coverage because we do not consider partial hits to be covered lines. If you look at the raw reports by going to the build tab here , you will see that these lines do not traverse the false path <file name="ColorButton.jsx" path="/home/runner/work/materia…

There is no code logic in HueSlider.jsx.

@mikbry Sorry. Noob response on my part. I believe @tom 's response is the point.

You are right @tom . It is confusing to see some differences between Codecov and jest coverage. And it is more tricky to avoid them during dev phase as partials are not displayed in html report… I will investigate.

This is strange, because I also use Jest and partials are displayed for me, both on the results summarized on the command line (with line numbers partially covered being enumerated and printed with different colors, like yellow), as well as in html report. The html reports are even more detailed, s…

Finally I found why such differences: I was sending cover.xml report which includes partials, but my html report is using lcov.info without partials support. I changed my script to send to codecov the lcov.info instead and now I have same 100%. But yes i didn’t fix partials…

Wrong coverage percentage

Support Bug Fixes

tom July 22, 2020, 3:25pm 2

Hi @paulocoghi, we noticed an issue with 3.7.1 and have patched it to 3.7.2. Could you try that out and see if that fixes your issue?

Topic		Replies	Views
3.7.2 codecov and bash: Wrong percentage for typescript code Bug Fixes	6	507	August 5, 2020
Shown code coverage differs between app.codecov.io and codecov.io Bug Fixes	2	310	September 28, 2021
Codecov randomly drops coverage Support	3	494	July 6, 2020
Project switched to be public again, yet coverage percentage is outdated Support github	4	366	June 5, 2020
Coverage rate is low despite all lines are marked green Support	2	290	May 1, 2020

Wrong coverage percentage

Related topics