👷 ci(codecov): make status checks informational#4
Conversation
Onyx-Nostalgia
commented
Aug 5, 2025
Onyx-Nostalgia
commented
- enable informational status checks for default project coverage
- enable informational status checks for patch coverage
- allow CI builds to pass even if coverage thresholds are not met
- enable informational status checks for default project coverage - enable informational status checks for patch coverage - allow CI builds to pass even if coverage thresholds are not met
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary of Changes
Hello @Onyx-Nostalgia, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
I've updated the codecov.yml configuration to make Codecov status checks informational rather than blocking. This change ensures that continuous integration builds will pass even if code coverage thresholds are not met, providing more flexibility in the CI pipeline.
Highlights
- Codecov Configuration Update: I've modified the
codecov.ymlfile to enable informational status checks for default project coverage. - Patch Coverage Status: I've also configured Codecov to make patch coverage status checks informational.
- CI Build Flexibility: This adjustment allows CI builds to successfully complete even if the defined code coverage thresholds are not fully met, preventing build failures solely due to coverage.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
| Feature | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
| Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
| Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
| Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #4 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 17 17
Branches 3 3
=========================================
Hits 17 17 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request updates the codecov.yml configuration to make both project and patch coverage status checks informational. This change allows CI builds to pass even if code coverage thresholds are not met, which aligns with the stated goal in the pull request description. The changes are correct and properly implemented.
- previously, coverage status checks were informational - now, they will be blocking, causing builds to fail if thresholds are not met
|
1 participant
