-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
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
Add code coverage to CI #3
Conversation
Actually starting to wonder if we should combine workflows, so that we're not doing a git-clone for each (I see GitHub actions is already throttling (waiting for runners), which could be reduced if we run the steps after each-other (single "checkout", then run build, test, coverage) |
Yes, we should probably do that. Will give it a go now. |
b5fcb1b
to
fc87e43
Compare
a64231d
to
a65c481
Compare
Last version looks good to me; should we merge the commits? The first commit is now adding a file which is immediately removed the commit after; I think for this case, it makes it still clear what's happening if we we combined the two; WDYT? |
(either that, or flip the commits, but I expect that would be "possibly hairy" to do) |
Signed-off-by: James Hewitt <[email protected]>
Squashed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
@milosgajdos ready to go? |
No description provided.