Feedback about the new pull request comment

Thanks for dropping by! 👋

We've been iterating and updating the layout, summary, and copy of the pull request comment.

What do you think about the changes?
What would you'd like to see improved?
What are challenges you've experienced with the report?
How do you use the comment today?
How could the report better help your workflow?
Any general thoughts you'd like to share!

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.

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.

@TechMaz

@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 🙏

@eliatcodecov

@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

I'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#97

Full 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?

On 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.

Hi，

On this PR, I just copy an old case and then mod one function call, no tests were removed, and the test coverage decreased.

I'm unable to view the coverage report like before on the PR's. Codecov is such a big mess rn.

@KnorpelSenf

"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.

@sayo96

unable 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.yml file gets synced with Codecov) but not receive the PR comments.

Update: it looks like comments can be disabled by adding comment: false in the Codecov config.

Is 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.

Hey! 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

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)

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)

We have the same issue. It's not a big deal, but it confusing and there are multiple of these (unneeded) comments already.

See NLog/NLog.Extensions.Logging#412 (comment)

Same here:

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.

@thomasrockhu-codecov

@thomasrockhu-codecov is anyone from @codecov attached to this discussion?

Taking a look...

Hi 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

@drazisil-codecov

@drazisil-codecov

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.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Feedback about the new pull request comment #8

Thanks for dropping by! 👋

httpie/cli#1434

74 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Feedback about the new pull request comment #8

Description

Thanks for dropping by! 👋

Activity

TechMaz commented on Feb 15, 2022

codecovdesign commented on Mar 3, 2022

openrefactory commented on Sep 7, 2022

httpie/cli#1434

daniellockyer commented on Sep 15, 2022

unmade commented on Oct 5, 2022

nitram509 commented on Oct 8, 2022

KnorpelSenf commented on Oct 23, 2022

ssb22 commented on Oct 29, 2022

mamil commented on Nov 21, 2022

sayo96 commented on Dec 14, 2022

codecovdesign commented on Dec 14, 2022

codecovdesign commented on Dec 14, 2022

PaulRBerg commented on Feb 7, 2023

slifty commented on Feb 14, 2023

ntindle commented on Apr 25, 2023

74 remaining items

garciaerubiel42-cmyk commented on Mar 24, 2026

RainbowMango commented on Apr 1, 2026

304NotModified commented on Apr 2, 2026

imnasnainaec commented on Apr 2, 2026

jsoref commented on Apr 29, 2026

304NotModified commented on Apr 29, 2026

jsoref commented on May 3, 2026

drazisil-codecov commented on May 4, 2026

drazisil-codecov commented on May 4, 2026

jsoref commented on May 4, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions