Reviewable VS Coveralls

Reviewable.io — Code review for GitHub repositories, free for public or personal repos. - Source: dev.to / 3 months ago

Yep, I agree! I work at, and use, Reviewable (https://reviewable.io) and we're the best way to review code on GitHub because we've focused on making the whole process better at every step. We've improved diffing, not only for large files (we support larger files than GitHub does) but also for understanding that diff. Have you ever reviewed a PR twice, but the second time around all your comments are gone and you... - Source: Hacker News / 8 months ago

Https://reviewable.io is the earliest full-powered Critique alternative for GitHub. It supports some cool things Critique doesn't/didn't, such as reviewing multi-commit branches (also across history-rewriting force-push cleanups), and indicating exactly the nature of your comment (just FYI, or you want this to be changed before you'll give your approval). (I was an intern in the initial making of Critique, and... - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago

The linux kernel, which is open source and does want contributors, is doing more-or-less just fine with an email-based PR and review flow. If it's an open source project, it should be using an open source review platform that allows improvements and specialization of the code hosting too. Using github, where the review tools are bad and can't be improved by an outsider, is a slap in the face to open source.... - Source: Hacker News / 10 months ago

>See reviewer presence so that you can see if someone is already reviewing and avoid unnecessary pings. >Visibly values privacy and security above all else These two things seem squarely at odds. Personally, I don't want my code review tool announcing to developers when I'm looking at their PR. The fact that it's a Chrome extension would also be a big blocker for me. I run a dev team, and I wouldn't... - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago

Cpan_coverage: This calculates the coverage of your test suite and reports the results. It also uploads the results to coveralls.io. - Source: dev.to / 4 months ago

I will normally use GitHub Actions to automatically run my test suite on each push, on every major version of Perl I support. One of the test runs will load Devel::Cover and use it to upload test coverage data to Codecov and Coveralls. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

Coveralls.io — Display test coverage reports, free for Open Source. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

Several years ago I got into Travis CI and set up lots of my GitHub repos so they automatically ran the tests each time I committed to the repo. Later on, I also worked out how to tie those test runs into Coveralls.io so I got pretty graphs of how my test coverage was looking. I gave a talk about what I had done. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago

This approach will create two json coverage files, which will be merged together by NYC. Therefore the results will be purely local. If You don't mind using online tools like Codecov or Coveralls for merging data from different tests, then go ahead and use them. They will probably also be more accurate. But if You still want to learn how to get coverage from E2E, then please read through. - Source: dev.to / almost 2 years ago