mirror of
https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell
synced 2026-06-08 12:12:50 +00:00
Remove some of the last AppVeyor references (#8867)
This removes some of the last mentions of the AppVeyor name. Don't change the title, we don't want the word to appear in the CLs Also problem: the last references are in the changelogs but I don't want to modify them without committee approval. ## PR Context it was removed, #8686
This commit is contained in:
committed by
Travis Plunk
parent
950465492a
commit
c14d5dd67f
@@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ Running code coverage more often on full PowerShell is something that we should
|
||||
We currently run only those tests which are tagged `CI` excluding the tag `SLOW` as part of our continuous integration systems.
|
||||
This means roughly 1/3rd of our github tests are not being run on any regular schedule.
|
||||
In order to provide us with higher confidence in our code, we should be running *ALL* of our tests on a regular basis.
|
||||
We have recently added to `AppVeyor` running all of our tests on a daily basis, but are not yet running these tests on Linux/Mac via `Travis`, which should be done.
|
||||
However, running the tests is only the first step, we need an easy way to be notified of test failures, and to track progress of those runs over time.
|
||||
Tracking this over time affords us the ability to see how our test count increases, implying an improvement in coverage.
|
||||
It also provides us mechanism whereby we can see trends in instability.
|
||||
@@ -194,4 +193,4 @@ Below is my suggestion for prioritization to reduce risk and improve confidence
|
||||
6. Replace in-lab tests with PowerShell Core tests
|
||||
7. Investigate feasibility of running current in-lab tests on PowerShell Core
|
||||
|
||||
These are [tracked](https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20%23testability%20) as issues
|
||||
These are [tracked](https://github.com/PowerShell/PowerShell/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20%23testability%20) as issues
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user