Staff/admin team, codecov?

General Q&A
1

Hello!

Our package was accepted at ropensci, and we need an ropensci owner to update Codecov’s repository access so that our codecov badge works,
see comment on issue ticket.

I spent a few minutes looking for who to contact at ropensci, and ineffectively asked for help from ropensci-review-bot, before tagging @jeroenooms as he is an ropensci owner and listed prominently in the “our team” section of the website.

Might it be sensible to have an ropensci team called “staff” or “owners” to ping with requests like this?

Also, could the dev guide be updated to include instructions for how to grant codecov access?

Thanks,
Edward

1 Like
2

Thanks Edward. Access is automatic, as you should be able to confirm by pushing a commit to your repo in the ropensci org.

3

Thanks @mpadge - I’m still getting an error on Code coverage done right. after putting in a pull request

And it would still be good to describe this in the dev guide.

4

Yes, definitely a good point to add to the dev guide - thanks! Feel free to open a PR there, or even a PR with suggested edits if you like. As for codecov: Your package does not appear to have a coverage workflow file. I think you first need to usethis::use_github_action("test-coverage"), then commit and push the file.

2 Likes
5

Thank you @ewallace!

I answered in the GitHub issue regarding codecov.

Regarding team member roles that’s a good point. We have a pinned message in the general channel of our semi-open Slack workspace (message that we will update soon) but I see you and your co-author aren’t in there yet. According to our files an invite was sent but something might have gone wrong and there is no pressure to join the slack workspace anyway. If you need a new invite please email me at maelle@ropensci.org.

I have opened an issue in the dev guide repo to update the guidance on whom to ask for help Clarify/add guidance on which team member to ask for help · Issue #483 · ropensci/dev_guide · GitHub (the idea of a support team on GitHub is good, as it’s nice to not link things to people’s names given roles evolve over time).

1 Like
6

Thanks both!

Pull request on Codecov in dev guide: Codecov how-to in CI section by ewallace · Pull Request #484 · ropensci/dev_guide · GitHub

Also, is it helpful to update the @ropensci-review-bot checklist for package review and/or acceptance to me more explicit about code coverage?

1 Like