| | 4 | |
| | 5 | For more context, the follow-up ticket to this would be #3385, which will attempt to use [[https://coveralls.io|coveralls.io]] for code coverage checks. We are not entirely satisfied with [[https://codecov.io|codecov.io]], which we currently use. For example, it is not always clear why codecov checks turn disapprove of certain PRs, even when test coverage remains unchanged. |
| | 6 | |
| | 7 | Now, in order to upload coverage reports to codecov.io, we will need to use [[https://github.com/coveralls-clients/coveralls-python|coveralls-python]], which requires that coverage reports should be in coverage 5.0 format. Which is the real motivation for unpinning coverage. |
| | 8 | |
| | 9 | (See coverage [[https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/coverage-5.2.1/changes.html#version-5-0a2-2018-09-03|changelog]]: "Coverage’s data storage has changed. In version 4.x, .coverage files were basically JSON. Now, they are SQLite databases.") |
