Docs: Clarify code coverage features and improve JaCoCo/Cobertura documentation
-
Start this issue's title with Docs:orDocs feedback:.
Problem to solve
Code coverage documentation is causing user confusion between two distinct features:
- Coverage reporting (shows percentages in MR widget using
coveragekeyword) - Coverage visualization (shows line-by-line coverage in diffs using
artifacts:reports:coverage_report)
Doc impact:
- /ci/testing/code_coverage/ (main page)
- /ci/testing/code_coverage/jacoco/
- /ci/testing/code_coverage/cobertura/
- /ci/yaml/artifacts_reports/ (coverage_report section)
- /ci/yaml/ (YAML reference - coverage and artifacts:reports keywords)
Further details
User feedback:
- Expect JaCoCo reports to show coverage percentages but only get line visualization
- Page structure ("Coverage Reports" → "JaCoCo Coverage Reports") misleads users about feature purpose
- Path matching failures with no actionable troubleshooting
- Missing visual examples to understand what each feature does
-
artifacts:reports:coverage_reportdocumentation contains key information about what the feature actually does - YAML reference documents
coverageandartifacts:reportsseparately with no cross-referencing
Audience: Developers setting up CI/CD pipelines who need code coverage (Sasha, Software Developer persona)
Proposal
- Restructure main coverage page - Lead with clear distinction between the two features with visual examples
- Update artifacts reports page - Clarify
coverage_reportshows diff annotations, not percentages - Improve troubleshooting - Practical guidance for path matching issues, especially for multi-module projects
- Add cross-references - Link between
coveragekeyword andcoverage_reportin YAML reference - Clarify limitations upfront - Aggregated reports, file path requirements
🔗 Other links/references
- JaCoCo feedback issue: [Feedback Issue]: Jacoco Coverage Reports (Beta) (#479804)
- Limitation for aggregated reports: Support JaCoCo aggregated reports in test cover... (#491015)