[GH-ISSUE #688] [Feature Request]: Add Code Coverage Support in CI #220

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-10-29 21:11:05 +00:00 by bsakaguchi · 1 comment

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-29 21:11:05 +00:00

Owner

Originally created by @xiaguan on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/kvcache-ai/Mooncake/issues/688

Describe your feature request

We would like to integrate code coverage reporting into our CI pipeline for this project to improve code quality and testing visibility.

Integrate a coverage tool like gcov/lcov or LLVM's coverage tools into the existing CI workflow

Generate coverage reports for each PR and main branch builds

Consider integration with coverage services like Codecov or Coveralls for better visualization and PR integration

Before submitting a new issue...

Make sure you already searched for relevant issues and read the documentation

Originally created by @xiaguan on GitHub (Jul 29, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/kvcache-ai/Mooncake/issues/688 ### Describe your feature request We would like to integrate code coverage reporting into our CI pipeline for this project to improve code quality and testing visibility. Integrate a coverage tool like gcov/lcov or LLVM's coverage tools into the existing CI workflow Generate coverage reports for each PR and main branch builds Consider integration with coverage services like Codecov or Coveralls for better visualization and PR integration ### Before submitting a new issue... - [ ] Make sure you already searched for relevant issues and read the [documentation](https://kvcache-ai.github.io/Mooncake/)

bsakaguchi

2026-10-29 21:11:05 +00:00

closed this issue
added the
good first issue
label

bsakaguchi commented

2026-10-29 21:11:05 +00:00

Author

Owner

@skprasadu commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025):

Hi Mooncake team — I’m @skprasadu.
I’d like to take on #688 (CI code coverage).

Proposed approach (split into small mergeable PRs):
1. Add a dedicated GitHub Actions workflow that builds with coverage flags, runs the existing tests, and uploads lcov output (and optional HTML) as an artifact.
2. If you want, follow up with Codecov/Coveralls integration for PR annotations/visibility.

A couple quick preferences before I start:
• Do you prefer lcov/gcov or llvm-cov for coverage?
• Should coverage run on every PR, or only when a PR is labeled (e.g. reuse run-ci / introduce run-coverage) to control CI cost?

If this sounds good, I’ll open 1st PR with the artifact-based coverage workflow.

@skprasadu commented on GitHub (Dec 23, 2025): Hi Mooncake team — I’m @skprasadu. I’d like to take on #688 (CI code coverage). Proposed approach (split into small mergeable PRs): 1. Add a dedicated GitHub Actions workflow that builds with coverage flags, runs the existing tests, and uploads lcov output (and optional HTML) as an artifact. 2. If you want, follow up with Codecov/Coveralls integration for PR annotations/visibility. A couple quick preferences before I start: • Do you prefer lcov/gcov or llvm-cov for coverage? • Should coverage run on every PR, or only when a PR is labeled (e.g. reuse run-ci / introduce run-coverage) to control CI cost? If this sounds good, I’ll open 1st PR with the artifact-based coverage workflow.

bsakaguchi referenced this issue

2026-10-29 21:27:08 +00:00

[PR #220] [MERGED] [TransferEngine] Use RDMA transport to transfer data in local process rapidly #1404