Skip to content

Move back to 100% coverage standard #17459

New issue
New issue
Open
Open
Move back to 100% coverage standard#17459
Assignees
daniel-sanche
Labels
priority: p2Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release.type: cleanupAn internal cleanup or hygiene concern.

Description

@daniel-sanche
daniel-sanche
opened on Jun 12, 2026

In #17456, it was reported that the coverage tests have been silently failing. We opened a PR to address this, but left the required coverage at 99% instead of 100, since there will be a gap before the next generation cycle. After the generator is updated, we should move back to a 100% coverage standard.

There may be some hand-written package that will also fail the 100% check. We should make the CI check use package-specific .coverage files for this reason, so individual packages can set their own limits (with the goal of everyone reaching 100% eventually)

Activity

  1. daniel-sanche
    added
    type: bugError or flaw in code with unintended results or allowing sub-optimal usage patterns.
    triage meI really want to be triaged.
    priority: p2Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release.
    type: cleanupAn internal cleanup or hygiene concern.
    and removed
    type: bugError or flaw in code with unintended results or allowing sub-optimal usage patterns.
    triage meI really want to be triaged.
    on Jun 12, 2026
  2. daniel-sanche
    self-assigned this
    on Jun 12, 2026

  3. daniel-sanche commented on Jul 1, 2026

    @daniel-sanche
    daniel-sanche
    on Jul 1, 2026
    ContributorAuthor

    We had to reduce the coverage in a handful of handwritten libraries here: #17607

  4. chalmerlowe commented on Jul 6, 2026

    @chalmerlowe
    chalmerlowe
    on Jul 6, 2026
    Contributor

    The CI check already defers to a package-specific .coveragerc file override of the minimum necessary coverage percentage, if the file is provided.

  5. parthea
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Jul 20, 2026

    chore(ndb): restore fail_under=100 in .coveragerc and noxfile (#17771)

    38091ad

    chore(api-core): restore fail_under=100 in .coveragerc (#17768)

    1b5a3cd
  6. hebaalazzeh
    added 2 commits that reference this issue on Jul 20, 2026

    chore(ndb): restore fail_under=100 in .coveragerc and noxfile (#17771)

    7071978

    chore(api-core): restore fail_under=100 in .coveragerc (#17768)

    d4b93a6
  7. parthea
    added a commit that references this issue on Jul 21, 2026

    chore(django-spanner): restore fail_under=100 in .coveragerc (#17772)

    fbf2f43
  8. ohmayr
    added a commit that references this issue on Jul 21, 2026

    chore(sqlalchemy-bigquery): restore complete coverage (#17770)

    d4b76fa
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

priority: p2Moderately-important priority. Fix may not be included in next release.type: cleanupAn internal cleanup or hygiene concern.

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions