[SPARK-50633][FOLLOWUP] Turn on options verbose for codecov/codecov-action
#49438
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
panbingkun
changed the title
verbose for codecov/codecov-action
|
Thank you @LuciferYang , I will quickly merge it to identify this issue. |
|
This is the configuration of another project ( |
|
I have submitted an issue to the |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
The pr aims to turn on options
verboseforcodecov/codecov-actionto identify issues.Why are the changes needed?
The issue is that I have added
token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }}in the configuration, but the workflow does not display it like the below:Furthermore, the workflow below was not successful.
https://github.com/apache/spark/actions/runs/12705043568/job/35415465795
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
No.
Was this patch authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?
No.