Skip to content

ci(coverage): set the coverage baseline at measured current (78%) - #1601

Merged
stranske merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/coverage-baseline-at-measured-current
Aug 26, 2026
Merged

ci(coverage): set the coverage baseline at measured current (78%)#1601
stranske merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/coverage-baseline-at-measured-current

Conversation

@stranske

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Why this file matters

Without config/coverage-baseline.json, tools/coverage_trend.py reports baseline_status: absent and computes no delta — and Maint Coverage Guard has nothing to compare against. A coverage regression in this repo is currently undetectable.

The number

Measured 78.01% from this repo's own coverage payload, floored to 78, with warn_drop: 1.0 absorbing run-to-run jitter.

Set at measured current, not at an aspiration — deliberately. Both failure directions are live in this fleet right now:

repo baseline real effect
Fine-Art-Archive 25 81.45% 56 points low — cannot fail
Workflows 85 76.72% 8 points high — red on arrival

A baseline above reality gets switched off; one far below it never fires. Same defect, opposite directions.

Keyed line

Both coverage_trend.py and coverage_guard.py accept line or coverage, with line taking precedence. That mismatch was itself a live defect until stranske/Workflows#3251, under which this repo's trend silently scored 0.0.

It's a ratchet

Raise it as coverage rises. It is not a target, and it should never be lowered to make a run pass.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Without config/coverage-baseline.json, tools/coverage_trend.py reports
baseline_status=absent and computes NO delta, and Maint Coverage Guard has nothing to
compare against -- so a coverage regression here is currently undetectable.

Set at MEASURED CURRENT (78.01%, Gate payload; reporting enabled in #1598), floored to 78, with
warn_drop 1.0 absorbing run-to-run jitter. Deliberately not an aspiration: a baseline
above reality is red on arrival and gets switched off, and one far below it can never
fail. Both failure directions are live in this fleet right now -- Fine-Art-Archive
carries 25 against a real 81.45%, Workflows carries 85 against a real 76.72%.

Keyed `line`: coverage_trend.py and coverage_guard.py both accept `line` or
`coverage`, with `line` taking precedence. That mismatch was itself a live defect
until stranske/Workflows#3251.

This is a ratchet, not a target: raise it as coverage rises.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 26, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

Next included review available in 47 minutes.

View limit details

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available. Your 83 included PR review attempts over the past 7 days set your current allowance at 1 review per hour.

Your organization has reached its usage spending cap. Adjust your spending cap in the billing tab.

Learn how review limits work.

Review configuration:

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dabfc43a-3ee2-40c0-a921-261ce5819779

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 5c2dee8 and 55e7d7c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • config/coverage-baseline.json

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@stranske
stranske merged commit 934ee74 into main Aug 26, 2026
15 checks passed
@stranske
stranske deleted the claude/coverage-baseline-at-measured-current branch August 26, 2026 03:41
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.

1 participant