# Parallel Scanning and Coverage Jobs

**URL:** <https://community.sonarsource.com/t/parallel-scanning-and-coverage-jobs/118429>\
**Category:** SonarQube Cloud\
**Tags:** coverage\
**Created:** [July 4, 2024, 3:07pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/parallel-scanning-and-coverage-jobs/118429 "2024-07-04T15:07:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jonathanb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@jonathanb](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/jonathanb)\
**Post date:** [July 4, 2024, 3:07pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/parallel-scanning-and-coverage-jobs/118429/1 "2024-07-04T15:07:58Z")

</div>

- ALM used: Github
- CI system used: CircleCi
- Scanner command used when applicable (private details masked)
- Languages of the repository: Java, Python, Typescript

Sonar takes a while to run for our codebase (even on an 8 core machine), so we decided to split the scanning out into a separate build from the test suite. We’re currently looking into uploading the test coverage to sonar, the problem now being that sonar isn’t running in the same job.

Is there a way to have a job only upload the lcov.info file, without it affecting the scanning itself? I’ve tried running sonar in both builds, with the testing job excluding all files, but that seems to wipe out all code scanning results.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Colin](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/colin/32/55255_2.png) [@Colin](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/Colin)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 2:50pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/parallel-scanning-and-coverage-jobs/118429/2 "2024-07-05T14:50:59Z")

</div>

Hey there.

You cannot enrich an analysis with data after the fact (like submitting a coverage report after submitting the analysis). Any analysis will always wipe out the previous one.

I’d suggest joining a similar conversation over here:

> [@SonarQube analysis taking too long](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/sonarqube-analysis-taking-too-long/117593):
>
> Hi, This is a big issue for us. We currently working on optimizing our build time. Sonarqube currently takes ~17 to ~20min. Since it is [not in your plan](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/scan-in-two-steps-possible-static-code-analysis-vs-tests-coverage/5980) to split sast and coverage, The only solution we have to save thoses ~18min is to drop sonar in profit of alternative tools like [gitlab SAST](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/application_security/sast/) or [github CodeQL](https://codeql.github.com/). (most of sast scanners can run in parallel of our build step… except spotbugs that need a compilation) I don’t find any good reasons why sonar scan is dependent of the coverage. Ma…