Skip to content

Conversation

@joseph-sentry
Copy link
Contributor

I previously added these because we were having issues storing very long test names and I wanted to "validate" the data that came in to make sure that we're not including random strings for test names that might include source code. The main problem was that we weren't able to index that data in timescale and that was causing issues. I've since removed those indexes and if we have to index on names we'll have to use full text indexes next time, but for now we don't need this anymore. In the future, we'll likely have to add some mechanism for users to "ignore" irrelevant tests in the UI, or filter the names of tests. In any case, the scope of this library is to simply parse a JUnit XML file, so we should stick to that here, and avoid trying to do more.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 16, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.69231% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 94.67%. Comparing base (accbb7f) to head (3e176e8).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/junit.rs 75.34% 18 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #85      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   95.63%   94.67%   -0.97%     
==========================================
  Files          17       16       -1     
  Lines        2337     2027     -310     
==========================================
- Hits         2235     1919     -316     
- Misses        102      108       +6     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@codspeed-hq
Copy link

codspeed-hq bot commented Sep 16, 2025

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #85 will not alter performance

Comparing joey/remove-structs (3e176e8) with main (accbb7f)

Summary

✅ 6 untouched

I previously added these because we were having issues storing very long test
names and I wanted to "validate" the data that came in to make sure that we're
not including random strings for test names that might include source code. The
main problem was that we weren't able to index that data in timescale and that
was causing issues. I've since removed those indexes and if we have to index
on names we'll have to use full text indexes next time, but for now we don't
need this anymore. In the future, we'll likely have to add some mechanism for
users to "ignore" irrelevant tests in the UI, or filter the names of tests. In
any case, the scope of this library is to simply parse a JUnit XML file, so we
should stick to that here, and avoid trying to do more.
@codecov-notifications
Copy link

codecov-notifications bot commented Sep 16, 2025

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 82.69231% with 18 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/junit.rs 75.34% 18 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants