Currently, SonarCloud does not show coverage analysis on each pull-request

Hi team, I have problems displaying source code coverage in each PR on SonarCloud.

  • The last time I updated the PR to display coverage information on SonarCloud, everything was fine as shown in the image below

  • But today, PR coverage is not displayed even though I didn’t change anything. Will anything change on SonarCloud that affects this?

My config in sonar-project.properties

sonar.projectKey=LONGDSS_project-authz-authn
sonar.organization=longdss
sonar.projectName=project-authz-authn
sonar.javascript.lcov.reportPaths=coverage/lcov.info

What do the logs say about the import of code coverage?

Do they look different between the two runs?

Thanks for your reply. I compared the successful log runs and failed log runs on Github Actions, they don’t differ in any way, so it caused me some confusion

I am facing the exact same issue for all of my python repositories. The code coverage info is missing from the Pull Requests. It was working before and no change was made to the configuration.

I also checked the scanner logs from before/after this issue started happening and there is no error or difference I could find.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

I can reproduce this on a “0 new lines” PR internally, so I’m flagging this for the relevant team.

If you experience this on any PRs with more than 0 new lines, let me know.

@shijigopinathan Sorry for the late reply, I’m having the same problem as you, but I used a small trick which is to add a new line of code to analyze coverage
=> SonarCloud will analyze that new part of your code. At the same time, display both coverage for new code and coverage for the entire code
Although it is only a temporary solution, I hope my answer is useful to you

@Colin Thank you. Currently I only encounter this situation with PRs that only have 0 new lines code, PRs that have new code will work normally.

Yes, it’s the same for me too. Thank you! Hopefully this issue will be fixed soon.

Hello,

This is indeed a bug, we have created a ticket internally to resolve this.

Thanks,

any update on the ticket you opened ? I am still facing the same issue.