Skip to content

Add repository coverage status page - #2743

Open
LipeGheno wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/repository-coverage-status
Open

Add repository coverage status page#2743
LipeGheno wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/repository-coverage-status

Conversation

@LipeGheno

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

  • Adds a new concept page, Repository coverage status, documenting the four statuses Codacy uses internally to classify whether a repository has coverage set up: No coverage, Up to date, Waiting for coverage, Stopped receiving coverage.
  • Registers the page in mkdocs.yml nav under Repositories on Codacy, right after Coverage page.
  • Source: Repository hasCoverage Linear project.

Note for reviewers

organizations/reporting/organization-overview.md currently defines "Repositories reporting coverage" as "repositories with coverage data from the latest merged pull request" — the old metrics-adapter mechanism. This new page documents the newer engine-driven coverage-status state machine, which isn't wired into that metric yet (migration is OD-50 / OD-48, both still in Linear backlog). The two pages describe different mechanisms for the same underlying question and aren't reconciled in this PR — flagging it for your call on whether/how to align them, rather than resolving it unilaterally.

Related: none of the UI-facing pieces that would let a user actually see this status (the "waiting for coverage" banner, gate warnings, repository list filter) have shipped yet either (OD-47, OD-49, OD-51). The page is scoped to the status definitions only — no claims about where it surfaces in the product.

Checks run

  • mkdocs build --strict — passes (only pre-existing, unrelated warnings)
  • nav: entry confirmed by eye
  • Linked target files confirmed to exist (repositories/coverage.md, coverage-reporter/index.md, faq/code-analysis/why-does-codacy-show-unexpected-coverage-changes.md)
  • Vale — not run (not installed in this environment); advisory only per repo convention

Test plan

  • Confirm the page appears under Repositories on Codacy in the built site nav
  • Confirm reviewers are comfortable publishing ahead of the OD-47/48/49/50/51 backlog work landing

@LipeGheno
LipeGheno requested a review from a team as a code owner September 7, 2026 13:09
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Overall readability score: 53.9 (🟢 +0.05)

File Readability
repository-coverage-status.md 66.21 (-)
View detailed metrics

🟢 - Shows an increase in readability
🔴 - Shows a decrease in readability

File Readability FRE GF ARI CLI DCRS
repository-coverage-status.md 66.21 40.45 8.44 10.3 11.71 6.6
  - - - - - -

Averages:

  Readability FRE GF ARI CLI DCRS
Average 53.9 42.9 10.94 12.38 12.3 8.02
  🟢 +0.05 🔴 -0.01 🟢 +0.01 🟢 +0.01 🟢 +0 🟢 +0.01
View metric targets
Metric Range Ideal score
Flesch Reading Ease 100 (very easy read) to 0 (extremely difficult read) 60
Gunning Fog 6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read) 8 or less
Auto. Read. Index 6 (very easy read) to 14 (extremely difficult read) 8 or less
Coleman Liau Index 6 (very easy read) to 17 (extremely difficult read) 8 or less
Dale-Chall Readability 4.9 (very easy read) to 9.9 (extremely difficult read) 6.9 or less

@codacy-production

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Up to standards ✅

🟢 Issues 0 issues

Results:
0 new issues

View in Codacy

AI Reviewer: first review requested successfully. AI can make mistakes. Always validate suggestions.

Run reviewer

TIP This summary will be updated as you push new changes.

@codacy-production codacy-production Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull Request Overview

This documentation update follows the required structural layout and passes automated quality checks, but it contains technical inaccuracies and alignment risks. The definitions provided for 'Waiting for coverage' and 'Stopped receiving coverage' are inaccurate as they rely on the historical activity of the default branch rather than a single 'most recent commit.' There is also a conflict with existing documentation in 'organization-overview.md' and the inclusion of UI features that have not yet been released. These issues should be addressed to ensure the documentation is accurate and consistent before being merged.

About this PR

  • The documentation refers to UI elements (status banners and filters) that are currently unreleased. Consider adding a 'Beta' disclaimer or delaying the release of this page to align with the product launch to avoid user confusion.
  • The coverage status definitions introduced here contradict existing documentation in 'organizations/reporting/organization-overview.md'. Please ensure these pages are synchronized to provide consistent information about how metrics are calculated.

Test suggestions

  • Verify that the new 'Repository coverage status' page is correctly registered in mkdocs.yml and appears in the site navigation.\n- [ ] Verify that all internal links to 'coverage.md', 'coverage-reporter/index.md', and the FAQ page resolve correctly.
Prompt proposal for missing tests
Consider implementing these tests if applicable:
1. Verify that the new 'Repository coverage status' page is correctly registered in mkdocs.yml and appears in the site navigation.\n- [ ] Verify that all internal links to 'coverage.md', 'coverage-reporter/index.md', and the FAQ page resolve correctly.

TIP Improve review quality by adding custom instructions
TIP How was this review? Give us feedback

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
# Repository coverage status

Codacy classifies each repository's coverage into one of four statuses, based on whether the most recent commit on the default branch has coverage data.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

⚪ LOW RISK

Suggestion: The status is determined by the coverage history of the default branch rather than just the single most recent commit.\n\nsuggestion\nCodacy classifies each repository's coverage into one of four statuses based on the coverage history of its default branch.\n

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.

1 participant