Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 13, 2023. It is now read-only.

Plan to deprecate this Action #6

Open
svartalf opened this issue May 1, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

Plan to deprecate this Action #6

svartalf opened this issue May 1, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@svartalf
Copy link
Member

svartalf commented May 1, 2020

Main reason for this Action to exist is to ship tarpaulin binary into the CI environment asap by downloading it from the GitHub releases page.

With actions-rs/install#4 resolved, this Action will be deprecated and archived.
@svartalf svartalf added the enhancement New feature or request label May 1, 2020
@CAD97
Copy link

CAD97 commented May 10, 2020

I still think this action is useful. The primary reason is that this action downloads the official binary from tarpaulin's releases page, whereas install downloads your own built cache of the library.

@svartalf
Copy link
Member Author

I do agree that "your own built cache" is a terrible long-term solution and should be removed as soon as possible; but note that actions-rs/install#4 says that GitHub cache store (as in actions/cache) is planned to be used instead of it.

thepacketgeek added a commit to thepacketgeek/bgp-rs that referenced this issue Jul 3, 2020
@thepacketgeek
Using cargo-tarpaulin install directly
ca1f611 
It seems the cargo-tarpaulin action is going to be deprecated, and I believe it is not running the doctests correctly
actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
@luizirber luizirber mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2020
Merged
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/notnow that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
3cc49f7 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/notnow that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
0565944 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/websocket-util that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
a6bc097 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/websocket-util that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
5f0a5f2 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/websocket-util that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
1b73b40 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/websocket-util that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
6112854 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/num-decimal that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
db2c0ab 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/websocket-util that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
9119087 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/num-decimal that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
d1e854e 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/apca that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
be1b664 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
d-e-s-o added a commit to d-e-s-o/apca that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@d-e-s-o
Switch to using cargo llvm-cov for code coverage assessment
503ba29 
Our code coverage collection runs have repeatedly failed because of a
what appears to be a bug in the actions-rs/tarpaulin implementation.
This action, it turns out, has actually been (soft?) deprecated [0].
Attempting to switch to installing cargo-tarpauling directly takes ages,
and we already know that we would rather avoid handling caching in
GitHub Actions, because of their API mess.
However, it appears as if cargo llvm-cov may be usable by now, and is
generally said to provide more accurate coverage information. Thus, with
this change we switch over to using it for collection of code coverage.
Note that cargo-tarpaulin also seems to support using LLVM coverage as a
backend, but it still suffers from the aforementioned issues.

[0] actions-rs/tarpaulin#6
@juan-leon juan-leon mentioned this issue Dec 31, 2022
Open
5 tasks
@clux clux mentioned this issue Feb 18, 2023
Closed
4 tasks
@NULLx76 NULLx76 mentioned this issue Apr 1, 2023
Merged
@tomaszklak tomaszklak mentioned this issue Oct 3, 2023
Merged
3 tasks
tomaszklak added a commit to NordSecurity/libtelio that referenced this issue Oct 4, 2023
@tomaszklak
Add tarpaulin based code coverage job
11f0fec 
This is a port from previous version of CI and uses the same command as
previously.

There might seem to be multiple other and better ways to do it but they
are all broken in some ways.

We could use the action https://github.com/actions-rs/tarpaulin but
that one is no longer maintained. The last version of tarpaulin it works
with is 0.22 from October 2022 and the fix is still not merged in after
multiple months: actions-rs/tarpaulin#23 .
Additionally there are discussions to deprecate this action:
actions-rs/tarpaulin#6

Alternatively we could have used the 'official' docker image of
tarpaulin: https://hub.docker.com/r/xd009642/tarpaulin . This will not
work since when github action runs in a docker, the container is not
started with enough privileges which causes tarpaulin to crash, see as
an example of this here:
xd009642/tarpaulin#146
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@svartalf @CAD97