add codecov.io support about tqdm

[lrq3000]

Ahhh good old Scrapy! Nice to see the project is still maintained :)

I didn't know about codecov.io, but it looks nice, I particularly like the fact that it gives the coverage rate and diff for each PR.

+1 for codecov.io support, but let's just not become coverage fanatics (I think the coverage failure threshold should be something around 70%~80%, so that experimental branches developping huge new features such as GUI won't systematically be marked as failures).

[casperdcl]

👍 to having something slightly lower than 100 to allow for big beta releases, but really these should have at least some major tests so 70% I think is too low.

[hadim]

+1

[lrq3000]

70% is clearly too low for the stable releases, so ideally, it would be great to have two different thresholds: one at something like 85%~90% for the master branch, and 70% by default for any other branch, so that we could develop experimental features without worrying too much about failing builds. But I don't know if that's possible with codecov.

[kmike]

IMHO all numbers are arbitrary and it is human who should decide if test coverage is enough for a specific case; 100% is also an arbitrary number (it doesn't mean that all cases are covered), but it is at least a bit less arbitrary. Red cross makes wonders :) You can still have Travis build green, but Codecov build red.

[lrq3000]

Ok then if there's no conflict of build failure between Codecov and Travis then we can set a high bar. I say we set at 90% for now, and we will see later if this needs to be reajusted.

Who want to take care of adding tqdm to codeconv? I tried to do it with my accound but it doesn't work (however I already granted the permission on github organization settings).

[lrq3000]

Ok I'm doing it, tqdm org is now showing at the top bar of codecov. Must be some delay between granting permission and the update being propagated back to their website.

[kmike]

Works now, thanks! I've enabled 80% incremental coverage build status and PR comments.

[lrq3000]

Yes all done now, we will see with the next PR if it works correctly with PRs.

OK I also left the 80% threshold (the default value), because it's not a global coverage threshold, but an incremental coverage threshold (ie, the coverage of the newly introduced lines of codes, not the rest!), so 80% is already a pretty high bar in my opinion.

Thank's for the proposition @kmike :) I am also eager to try out the Coverage Suggestions feature :D

[lrq3000]

I just confirmed it works in PR, so everything's good :)