Set a 80% threshold for the codecov status.patch

[ahrtr]

Basically we depend on maintainers to decide whether we should add test to improve the coverage for each PR, although we set a 1% threshold for now.

[ahrtr]

cc @ivanvc @jmhbnz @serathius

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 68.71%. Comparing base (f03dee9) to head (6d84287).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

see 23 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #19046      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.73%   68.71%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35623    35623              
==========================================
- Hits        24486    24479       -7     
- Misses       9702     9710       +8     
+ Partials     1435     1434       -1     

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f03dee9...6d84287. Read the comment docs.

[ahrtr]

cc @fuweid

[ahrtr]

The PR doesn't fix the failure of codecov/patch in #19041. @ivanvc @jmhbnz do you know how to adjust the parameter to fix it? Or we can just disable the patch status.

[ivanvc]

The PR doesn't fix the failure of codecov/patch in #19041. @ivanvc @jmhbnz do you know how to adjust the parameter to fix it? Or we can just disable the patch status.

@ahrtr, after reading the documentation, I think the behavior that we want is to set the threshold to 99% rather than 1%. Can you try that on your other pull request to see if there's a failure?

[ahrtr]

@ahrtr, after reading the documentation, I think the behavior that we want is to set the threshold to 99% rather than 1%. Can you try that on your other pull request to see if there's a failure?

Thanks. Just updated #19041, Let's see what's the result. Most likely it should work. Probably we should just disable it.

[ahrtr]

Just changed to 80%, at least it's better than off/disabled. As mentioned above, we still need to depend on Maintainers to whether we should add test to improve the coverage for each PR.

[ahrtr]

@ivanvc yes, it works in #19041.

Please take a look at this PR, let's get it merged firstly. thx

[ivanvc]

/retest

[ivanvc]

LGTM. Thanks, @ahrtr.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ahrtr, fuweid, ivanvc

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [ahrtr]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment