Pipe - cleaned up and merged with master

[dotnetCarpenter]

Support for piped coverage reports via --pipe or -l parameter to codecov.

See previous #30 PR, which had an issue with timeouts on slow CI. This PR uses parameters instead of a timer, so this should not be an issue.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #92 into master will increase coverage by 0.12%.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #92      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.88%   88.01%   +0.12%     
==========================================
  Files          18       18              
  Lines         289      292       +3     
  Branches       69       70       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          254      257       +3     
  Misses         35       35

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/codecov.js	80.34% <100%> (+0.34%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 625807c...145cb46. Read the comment docs.

[dotnetCarpenter]

Seems like the codecov/patch check is not working. The code coverage is going up but the target is not hit. Maybe a configuration mistake?

There is something else wrong with the tests - not mine, but in general.
"Codecov can auto detect reports"
"Codecov can detect .bowerrc without directory"
Locally, they expect "coverage.json" but on travis they expect "example.coverage.txt". Seems that res.files[0] is changing depending if run locally (on linux) or on travis. Should not be because of node version since I'm running node v8.9.4 and one of the VM's on travis is also running version 8.

[dotnetCarpenter]

@eddiemoore it would be nice to see some signals from your guys, so this PR is not just closed as #30 was.

[eddiemoore]

@dotnetCarpenter yeah sorry I'm a maintainer and not full time codecov staff. Haven't had much time to work on it for quite a while.

Locally, they expect "coverage.json" but on travis they expect "example.coverage.txt"

yeah I notice this too. Most of the tests were written a long time ago. Not exactly sure why it's like that.

Code looks ok to me. Just need to fix the merge conflicts

[dotnetCarpenter]

@eddiemoore I will take a look whenever I get time. Would it be possible to have all tests pass before I merge in from master again? There will probably be some conflicts and as long as the tests are failing I can not be sure I am not the cause of it..

[dotnetCarpenter]

Currently two tests are failing on master:

  1) Codecov can auto detect reports:

      Error: expected 'coverage.json' to sort of equal 'example.coverage.txt'
      + expected - actual

      -coverage.json
      +example.coverage.txt

      at Assertion.assert (node_modules/expect.js/index.js:96:13)
      at Assertion.eql (node_modules/expect.js/index.js:230:10)
      at Context.<anonymous> (test/index.js:43:56)

  2) Codecov can detect .bowerrc without directory:

      Error: expected 'coverage.json' to sort of equal 'example.coverage.txt'
      + expected - actual

      -coverage.json
      +example.coverage.txt

      at Assertion.assert (node_modules/expect.js/index.js:96:13)
      at Assertion.eql (node_modules/expect.js/index.js:230:10)
      at Context.<anonymous> (test/index.js:76:56)

[eddiemoore]

@dotnetCarpenter can you pull the latest changes? All tests passing fine on local now for me.

[dotnetCarpenter]

@eddiemoore The main issue was that it the tests are passing locally but not in travis.
However, when I pull in the latest changes (mainly to fix conflicts) then my test fails and I'm struggling to remember how the test is suppose to work..
I'll dig around a little more and see if I can figure it out

[dotnetCarpenter]

@eddiemoore Looks good! Please check the documentation - seem that I mixed the --pipe or -l flag with the token documentation.

[sindresorhus]

Should be:

./node_modules/.bin/nyc report --reporter=text-lcov | ./node_modules/.bin/codecov --pipe

[eddiemoore]

👍

[dotnetCarpenter]

Hmm.. that is correct if you invoke codecov from the terminal. But if you set it in package.json script section, then you should not specify the path. But since all of the examples are written as invoked from the terminal, I will change it.

[eddiemoore]

@dotnetCarpenter just need to fix the merge conflicts and update the docs as @sindresorhus pointed out.

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@023d204). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master      #92   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   88.01%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       18           
  Lines             ?      292           
  Branches          ?       70           
=========================================
  Hits              ?      257           
  Misses            ?       35           
  Partials          ?        0

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lib/codecov.js	80.34% <100%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 023d204...5f2d0e6. Read the comment docs.

[dotnetCarpenter]

@eddiemoore I'm getting 166 eslint errors when I run npm test locally.

The offending files are coverage/lcov-report/sorter.js and coverage/lcov-report/prettify.js.

I feel I've spend the majority of time with this PR, fixing merge conflicts and errors in tests. It's been a long time since I've used codecov and do not have a professional interest in this patch anymore.
That being said, I have a personal interest in getting my work accepted but I don't want to invest more time in this patch at this time.

Can you please resolve what remains?