Skip to content

Conversation

@dylangrafmyre
Copy link
Contributor

Add Coveralls.io gem "coveralls" to implement code coverage monitoring
Add status badges to README for Codeship ans Travis-CI builds, Coveralls code-coverage, and Gemansium gem dependency monitoring and security.

Add coverall gem to gemfile and bundle install to update Gemfile.lock Add require for coveralls to top of spec/rails_helper.rb. this must be at the top before any rails code loads. Add .coveralls.yml config file and set CI service_name to Codeship.
@samnang
Copy link
Contributor

samnang commented Sep 15, 2015

Look good, but why do we need to setup both Codeship and Travis-CI? Should we pick just one?

@dylangrafmyre
Copy link
Contributor Author

@samnang a request was made to have travis-ci build in place. I added both badges to for both. Since we are both active on Codeship and Travis-CI.

Figured, you guys could pick one or leave both? It is free for open source. Codeship is the CI that is actively deploying to Heroku for the CD.

@justin808 your thoughts?

@samnang
Copy link
Contributor

samnang commented Sep 15, 2015

I see. From my opinion, I think we should standardize our stack. Travis-CI could run multiple ruby versions, allows to cluster tests and run them in parallel, and it's pretty good for open source. CircleCI is also good for open source & private(free 1 container), and they also have good UI. Circle-CI, it has almost the same feature with Circle-CI and Travis-CI, but they have limit build(100 builds/month) for private project. They all support to deploy to Heroku.

I think we should only pickup one for a project because it makes the test status reliable and also quick to get to the finish status on PR's status check as well. And the integration with Coveralls should just be one.

I would choose Travis-CI for open source project because some open source projects like gems we want to tested in multiple ruby versions. And choose Circle-CI for private project because unlimited build.

@justin808
Copy link
Member

I agree with @samnang that we need only one active. However, I'd like this project to serve as an example, so I'm OK with both running so long as it doesn't slow us down a lot.

dylangrafmyre added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2015
@dylangrafmyre dylangrafmyre merged commit eeaec39 into master Sep 15, 2015
@dylangrafmyre dylangrafmyre deleted the code_coverage-linting branch September 15, 2015 17:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

4 participants