Repository navigation
Feedback about the new pull request comment #8
Description
Activity
I think it's a great feature, but it can sometimes clog up a PR review screen, so it would be great if they were collapsible so that we can read the code around them more easily when desired.
Reacted by Chris Austin and Pawfect Grooming And Pet Handling School@TechMaz thank you for your feedback.
We are actually experimenting with a new layout, see below. It prioritizes the high level summary and then collapses the other reporting data (impacted files, table, etc).Would love to hear your feedback 🙏
Reacted by Charles Tapley Hoyt, Dan Hemberger, Andy P. and G. Szabi #Luckylukee@eliatcodecov
Please watch this issue we have open this issue one week ago still don't get any respond yet.httpie/cli#1434
I love it! It's so much cleaner and less obtuse <3
Reacted by Codecov Product DesignI'm not sure how that's possible but pull request form shows me wrong coverage result - it says my pull request will decrease project coverage, although I'm confident my changes won't not affect coverage at all. I don't see that problem in the codecov web application.
I also compared coverage.xml files uploaded to codecov for corresponding commits and they're identical.
The pull request with wrong form:
unmade/shelf-back#97Full report at codecov:
https://app.codecov.io/gh/unmade/shelf-back/pull/97
And here's the coverage files for corresponding commits:
- HEAD: a1e3d35.txt
- BASE: 1baf419.txt
Hi,
thanks for providing codecov tests to the Open Source community for free.
After adding some tests, I found your report reported lower coverage than before, when no test was there at all.
See argoproj/argo-rollouts#2303 (comment)I do not trust the codecov report, because why it's going down when I literally create the first test file in this package?
PS: I just measured the test coverage of the new file created, this is 87% (according to IntelliJ).
This may sound like a nitpick but the coverage diff has a sign error in the GitHub comment that the bot is posting. It says "coverage decreases by
-3%" but decreasing by a negative amount would mean increasing. Perhaps it should say "coverage decreases:-3%" to make it more accurate?Reacted by Codecov Product Design and DONOVAN O.SILVERAOn this pull request I simply added some lines to the documentation (README.md and README.rst), but CodeCov warned that code coverage had been reduced by my change. It would be nice if obvious documentation files didn't count. Thanks.
Reacted by David BakinI'm unable to view the coverage report like before on the PR's. Codecov is such a big mess rn.
"coverage decreases by -3%"...Perhaps it should say "coverage decreases: -3%" to make it more accurate?
Thank you, @KnorpelSenf that makes sense - will update text clarification in next iteration.
Reacted by KnorpelSenfunable to view the coverage report like before on the PR
@sayo96 it's a new PR layout we are testing. is there something specific that you noticed and/or preferred to see that was in the the previous comment?Is it possible to disable the automatic comments?
We'd like to keep using the Codecov GitHub app (so that our
codecov.ymlfile gets synced with Codecov) but not receive the PR comments.Update: it looks like comments can be disabled by adding
comment: falsein the Codecov config.Reacted by Codecov Product DesignIs it possible to manually request that codecov re-run the report? I've found the most spotty aspect of codecov in our development workflow to be when we force push to a branch with new test coverage but codecov doesn't update the statistics.
It would be great to be able to basically say "@codecov rerun" or something along those lines in the PR.
Reacted by Codecov Product Design, PDWgde53xsB5tMZ, Joe Becher and andreaskulickeHey! Over at https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT/, we are running into some severe problems with CodeCov. We tried reaching out to a rep and getting some of it worked out and a demo, but they were unavailable at our scheduled time. We liked CodeCov, but it currently needs fixing and denying all PRs. I don't particularly want to swap providers, but hundreds of people are asking us why CodeCov is broken, and we need help finding answers. I would love a reply as soon as you can
Reacted by Jerrod Engelberg74 remaining items
Am i still in sodo mode and yeah thanks again for the oppornity to expirince my tool once more and over its been really fun being with all you and seeing how thos will end up as ŵhole. As far a improvent we might consider bringing it dow a knotch to let our comperiter keep up l. As far as the coverage ive been told it increases it performance and coverage.
Don't know why we got a comment on a PR that was merged 3 years ago. Is there something wrong?
karmada-io/karmada#2680 (comment)Reacted by D. Ror. and Josh SorefDon't know why we got a comment on a PR that was merged 3 years ago. Is there something wrong? karmada-io/karmada#2680 (comment)
We have the same issue. It's not a big deal, but it confusing and there are multiple of these (unneeded) comments already.
Reacted by D. Ror. and Josh Soref- Reacted by Julian Verdurmen
WTF.
- build(deps): bump github.com/AlecAivazis/survey/v2 from 2.3.4 to 2.3.6 jsoref/act#69 (comment)
- build(deps): bump github.com/go-ini/ini from 1.64.0 to 1.66.5 jsoref/act#47 (comment)
- build(deps): bump github.com/docker/cli from 20.10.10+incompatible to 20.10.16+incompatible jsoref/act#45 (comment)
- build(deps): bump megalinter/megalinter from 5 to 6.3.0 jsoref/act#60 (comment)
- build(deps): bump megalinter/megalinter from 5 to 6.0.2 jsoref/act#56 (comment)
FYI I've emailed Codecov (hello-codecov@sentry.io) for this issue.
Reacted by Josh Soref@thomasrockhu-codecov is anyone from @codecov attached to this discussion?
Reacted by Joe BecherTaking a look...
Reacted by Josh SorefHi folks! Sorry for the delay on this. Quick question for my notes: do any of you have the Codecov GitHub app installed on the affected repos?
Our working theory: when those PRs were closed or merged, Codecov never received the pull_request webhook (which is how we learn a PR's state has changed). Without that, our database still believed the PR was
open.Codecov has a sync mechanism where loading a PR's coverage page triggers an async task to fetch the latest state and send updated status checks. This was designed as a safety net to catch cases where webhooks
were delayed or dropped. Because of how that task is sequenced, the PR comment fires before we confirm the current state — meaning for these stale PRs, a comment went out before we realized they'd been closed.For the affected repos, it looks like someone loaded the Codecov coverage page for those PRs, which triggered the update.
We've shipped a fix: codecov/umbrella#910
- moved this from Waiting for: Product Owner to Waiting for: Community in GitHub Issues with 👀
on May 4, 2026 https://github.com/jsoref/act/settings/installations
My guess is that I never installed such an app, but I'm not going to make such a strong claim.
- locked and limited conversation to collaborators
on Aug 19, 2026
Thanks for dropping by! 👋
We've been iterating and updating the layout, summary, and copy of the pull request comment.
We greatly appreciate your time and thoughts - looking forward to hearing from you ❤
Codecov team
This issue is intended to share and collect feedback about the tool. If you have support needs or questions, please see our support page.