Skip to content

[DO NOT MERGE] test: verify PR coverage after #6082 routing fix - #6106

Closed
jam-jee wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
codecov-verify-post6082-donotmerge
Closed

[DO NOT MERGE] test: verify PR coverage after #6082 routing fix#6106
jam-jee wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
codecov-verify-post6082-donotmerge

Conversation

@jam-jee

@jam-jee jam-jee commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

⚠️ DO NOT MERGE — verification PR

Re-verification now that #6082 is merged (PR unit-tests route to the CDK-managed ci-health-unit-test-v3 project, which runs --cov=sagemaker). No-op comment in all 4 submodule __init__.py files so every unit-test job runs and uploads coverage.

Expected

With #6082 live, the unit-test jobs now run the fixed buildspec, so uploaded coverage.xml is product-only (test files excluded).

Known remaining caveats

  • fix: remove codecov after_n_builds so single-submodule PRs report coverage #6056 not mergedafter_n_builds: 4 still on master, so this uses 4 submodules to produce 4 uploads.
  • Uploader still bare — the CodeBuild codecov upload call still lacks -B/-P/-F, so uploads carry branch= empty / pr=false / no flags. If that's still the case, coverage may still not attach to the PR (and the 4 uploads may collapse to sessions=1). This PR will tell us definitively whether the uploader fix is the last remaining blocker.

Will be closed without merging once we read the result.

No-op comment in all 4 submodule __init__.py files. #6082 (merged) now
routes PR unit-tests to the CDK-managed ci-health-unit-test-v3 project
(--cov=sagemaker). This PR checks whether Codecov coverage now shows on
the PR. 4 submodules => 4 uploads (works around unmerged #6056
after_n_builds:4). Same-repo branch from current master. Verification only.
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Claude finished @jam-jee's task in 25s —— View job


Review: verification PR (DO NOT MERGE)

I read the full diff at /tmp/pr.diff. This PR adds a single identical comment line to four submodule __init__.py files:

# No-op line to trigger CI for a Codecov verification post-#6082 (DO NOT MERGE).
  • sagemaker-core/src/sagemaker/core/__init__.py
  • sagemaker-mlops/src/sagemaker/mlops/__init__.py
  • sagemaker-serve/src/sagemaker/serve/__init__.py
  • sagemaker-train/src/sagemaker/train/__init__.py

Assessment

Nothing to flag. These are pure comment-only no-ops with no executable effect:

  • Correctness — no code paths, imports, __all__ entries, or public interfaces are touched. No backward-compatibility impact for SDK consumers.
  • Security / performance — N/A; comments only.
  • Tests — none needed; there's no behavior change to cover.

One minor placement note (non-blocking): in sagemaker-train/.../__init__.py the comment lands at module level after the __getattr__ function definition, whereas in core and serve it follows a comment/__all__ block. Cosmetic only, and irrelevant given this branch is explicitly DO NOT MERGE and will be closed once the Codecov result is read.

The PR does exactly what it intends: force all four unit-test jobs to run so each uploads coverage. Looks clean for its stated purpose. ✅

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jul 27, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.81%. Comparing base (368a1a9) to head (59a0449).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6106   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   69.80%   69.81%           
=======================================
  Files         548      548           
  Lines       65855    65855           
=======================================
+ Hits        45970    45976    +6     
+ Misses      19885    19879    -6     
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jam-jee jam-jee closed this Jul 28, 2026
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