Skip to content

Replace travis-ci - #2201

Draft
ni-jfitzger wants to merge 5 commits into
ni:masterfrom
ni-jfitzger:replace-travis-ci
Draft

Replace travis-ci#2201
ni-jfitzger wants to merge 5 commits into
ni:masterfrom
ni-jfitzger:replace-travis-ci

Conversation

@ni-jfitzger

@ni-jfitzger ni-jfitzger commented Aug 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

TODO: Check the above box with an 'x' indicating you've read and followed CONTRIBUTING.md.

TODO: Check the above box with an 'x' if considered if there were any and then documented client facing changes in CHANGELOG.md. Strike through if this is not a relevant client facing change.

  • I've added tests applicable for this pull request

TODO: Check the above box with an 'x' indicating you have considered and added any applicable system or unit tests. Strike through if you considered and decided additional tests were not warranted.

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

Travis has stopped accepting our requests for builds.
GitHubs Actions and workflows is something we're trying to standardize on for CI, anyway, and has the advantage of being free.

This restores our CI Checks by replacing Travis CI with a GitHub workflow.

List issues fixed by this Pull Request below, if any.

TODO: List of issues.

  • Fix #xxx
  • Fix #yyy

What testing has been done?

TODO: Detail what testing has been done to ensure this submission meets requirements.

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Aug 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 88.51%. Comparing base (b6458aa) to head (c06c621).

Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2201      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.69%   88.51%   -0.18%     
==========================================
  Files          59       82      +23     
  Lines       18722    21679    +2957     
==========================================
+ Hits        16606    19190    +2584     
- Misses       2116     2489     +373     
Flag Coverage Δ
codegenunittests 84.90% <ø> (?)
nidcpowersystemtests 94.38% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
nidcpowerunittests 89.53% <ø> (?)
nidigitalsystemtests 92.02% <ø> (ø)
nidigitalunittests 68.44% <ø> (?)
nidmmsystemtests 92.29% <ø> (ø)
nifakeunittests 86.01% <ø> (?)
nifgensystemtests 94.32% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstsystemtests 73.85% <ø> (ø)
nimodinstunittests 94.20% <ø> (?)
nirfsasystemtests 82.66% <ø> (ø)
nirfsgsystemtests 81.12% <ø> (ø)
niscopesystemtests 89.96% <ø> (ø)
niscopeunittests 43.20% <ø> (?)
nisesystemtests 91.50% <ø> (ø)
niswitchsystemtests 81.56% <ø> (ø)
nitclksystemtests 94.87% <ø> (ø)
nitclkunittests 98.26% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 27 files with indirect coverage changes


Continue to review full report in Codecov by Harness.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b6458aa...c06c621. Read the comment docs.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@ni-jfitzger

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

TODO: Maybe this action shouldn't be named unit_tests.yml. It's doing more than just running unit tests. Maybe CI.yml.

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.

2 participants