Pipeline Cobertura coverage reports - clarification

self-hosted Omnilbus Docker 13.12.3 installation, using Kubernetes CI/CD Runner

Some very helpful posts in the CI/CD category, especially the great posts by @jheimbuck_gl

Just hoping to get confirmation (as I’m not yet seeing the coverage reports but I think I might know why…) that, per the page at how-test-coverage-visualization-works, multiple Cobertura formatted XML reports can be uploaded as is, and that Gitlab will properly aggregate them for display in the MR diffs page. I ask because when I download the pipeline’s tests:cobertura artifact via the pipeline’s Artifacts menu, the resulting download is not proper XML (the root <?xml version="1.0" ?> element is repeated, there is no root element (just a sequence of <?xml version="1.0" ?><coverage>...</coverage> elements. Which is fine if that’s just the download of the combining of multiple reports and not indicative of what the Gitlab visualization process constructs via the coverage_report.json requested by the diff page (post 56814 touches on providing multiple files as the artifacts:reports:cobertura entity).

2nd question I think I’ve read - coverage is only displayed for files that are both in the set of MR diff files AND in the provided coverage files (ie. files covered but not modified won’t be displayed on the MR page - it’s not meant to be a complete coverage review tool, just for the MR affected git elements. Is my understanding correct? As it would explain why I’m not yet seeing them - the changes I’m reviewing are for getting the coverage reports to work, I’ve not changed the code under coverage collection :slight_smile:

3rd item: the automatic class mentioned in https://forum.gitlab.com/t/code-coverage-visualization-not-working/57633/2 correction mentioned in post 56066 ought to be in effect for our installation (13.12.3). So from my reading of that feature, as long as the path can be corrected to use the <class filename value, the coverage visualization function should be able to retrieve the source code from the repository? Ie. filename path appended to path with the leading /builds/{build-id}/group/project path removed, results in valid full path to covered source.

4th question: Does the <package name= value affect anything? I am planning on using that to facilitate the grouping function obtained in the generated output of the ReportGenerator-5.0.0 tool…

MTIA for any feedback, insights.