Update to codecov-action@v4

[CoolCat467]

This pull request updates the code coverage action to v4

Reading the release details, it looks like they update node runtime thing, drop support for not telling them the token to use (trio tells them the token so that's fine), and "various argument changes"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.57%. Comparing base (0090581) to head (bb5c52c).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (0090581) and HEAD (bb5c52c). Click for more details.

HEAD has 114 uploads less than BASE

Flag	BASE (0090581)	HEAD (bb5c52c)
Ubuntu	16	0
3.8	14	0
macOS	12	0
3.11	8	0
3.12	10	1
3.10	8	0
3.9	8	0
3.13	2	0
Alpine	2	1
Windows	28	0
pypy-3.10	8	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2951      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.60%   92.57%   -7.03%     
==========================================
  Files         121      121              
  Lines       17882    17882              
  Branches     3214     3163      -51     
==========================================
- Hits        17811    16554    -1257     
- Misses         50     1214    +1164     
- Partials       21      114      +93     

see 55 files with indirect coverage changes

[A5rocks]

Surprised at the loss of 3 percentage points of coverage -- is there some platform where things broke?

... interesting: https://github.com/python-trio/trio/actions/runs/7865327122/job/21458126980?pr=2951#step:7:12 (edit: reported to codecov/codecov-action#1279)

[A5rocks]

Is codecov just consistently reporting less coverage? It looks like -3% coverage on all platforms.

It looks like codecov is regenerating coverage.xml rather than using the one we made (which has all the configuration we apply).

[A5rocks]

I tried a workaround and it didn't work. I'm not entirely sure my hypothesis on why this is taking away coverage is correct. But nonetheless consider me displeased that somehow codecov managed to have 2 changes that affect us in a single major version bump >:[

Here's the logs I find suspicious:

On alpine (v3 action):

[2024-02-13T07:09:43.431Z] ['info'] Searching for coverage files...
[2024-02-13T07:09:43.480Z] ['info'] Warning: Some files located via search were excluded from upload.
[2024-02-13T07:09:43.481Z] ['info'] If Codecov did not locate your files, please review https://docs.codecov.com/docs/supported-report-formats
[2024-02-13T07:09:43.481Z] ['info'] => Found 1 possible coverage files:
  coverage.xml
[2024-02-13T07:09:43.481Z] ['info'] Processing empty/coverage.xml...

On macos (v4 action):

warning - 2024-02-13 07:08:53,180 -- No config file could be found. Ignoring config.
warning - 2024-02-13 07:08:53,199 -- No swift data found.
warning - 2024-02-13 07:08:53,214 -- No gcov data found.
info - 2024-02-13 07:08:53,215 -- Generating coverage.xml report in /Users/runner/work/trio/trio/empty
info - 2024-02-13 07:08:57,046 -- Wrote XML report to coverage.xml
info - 2024-02-13 07:08:57,092 -- Found 1 coverage files to upload
info - 2024-02-13 07:08:57,092 -- > empty/coverage.xml

---

Alright, after that latest workaround attempt:

• good news: I got rid of the coverage.xml generation
• bad news: that wasn't the problem. was the uploader looking at pyproject.toml before? does exclude_lines not effect the coverage.xml file but rather how codecov interprets it? (and someone might want to working-directory -> directory. i'm not sure why we would prefer one over the other)

[jakkdl]

the alpine v3 codecov action is also saying

[2024-02-13T07:23:32.835Z] ['info'] Error fetching git root. Defaulting to /__w/trio/trio/empty. Please try using the -R flag. Error: Error running external program: Error: spawnSync git ENOENT

https://github.com/python-trio/trio/actions/runs/7883042498/job/21509252192?pr=2951#step:7:25

though that's not new (v3 on non-alpine never said it), but maybe also an indication of directory trouble?

does exclude_lines not effect the coverage.xml file but rather how codecov interprets it?

I think this is the case, since it's under the tool.coverage.report heading - whereas tool.coverage.run is for the xml/binary .coverage files. (some local testing suggests the same, modifying the report section after having generated coverage data changes the output of coverage report).

So this is about codecov not being able to find the pyproject.toml file, maybe it's because of us messing around with empty/ and $INSTALLDIR and stuff?

Knock-on problems turned up

[jakkdl]

Random idea: I realized we don't have a codecov.yaml, which is the codecov-specific configuration file. You don't need one, but maybe it would help resolve our problems https://docs.codecov.com/docs/codecov-yaml

[jakkdl]

@CoolCat467 updating the branch with a merge commit will ping everybody subscribed to a PR (which might be a lot, since joining the trio/ org automatically makes you watch the repository for all activity). AFAIK there's no way to disable merge-commit-notifications in particular, so even though it sometimes is useful it'd be lovely if you refrained from repeatedly bumping PRs unless there's relevant changes or something <3

[CoolCat467]

@CoolCat467 updating the branch with a merge commit will ping everybody subscribed to a PR (which might be a lot, since joining the trio/ org automatically makes you watch the repository for all activity). AFAIK there's no way to disable merge-commit-notifications in particular, so even though it sometimes is useful it'd be lovely if you refrained from repeatedly bumping PRs unless there's relevant changes or something <3

Sorry, I just want to make sure things stay up to date, but yes I can do that.

[CoolCat467]

Ok last update was 3 months ago, and while there are not merge conflicts I think that it's reasonable to update it again now that this much time has passed.

[CoolCat467]

It's been a long time, what exactly was the issue for not using v4 again? Loss compared to previous system or something?

[A5rocks]

Yeah, the issue was decreased coverage despite the coverage files and coverage config not actually changing.

[jakkdl]

codecov/codecov-action#1279 has been resolved, lets see if we can get this working or there are other issues blocking us

[jakkdl]

Current status:

• merging main showed -7% coverage, which was due to codecov only displaying the v3 run. It appears we cannot mix v3 and v4?
• After changing alpine to use v4 I'm now not seeing any codecov in CI
  • do we need to open a new PR for it to properly check v4?
  • Alpine is crashing again, it appears [v4] Failing to import PGP key when updating from v3 to v4 codecov/codecov-action#1279 has not in fact been resolved for us?
• [v4] exclude_lines from pyproject.toml not respected codecov/codecov-action#1326 is still unresolved, though it's possible the behavior has changed since it was opened >5 months ago.