|7eter l-|. l3oling

I could figure it out, but I just put a lot of time into trying to figure out how to get code coverage working, and it's a far bigger lift...

@ilyazub If you'd be interested in adding a maintainer, I'll apply for the role!

You can see the results of the CI on the fork here: https://github.com/VitalConnectInc/turbo_tests/actions I expect it to pass here as well, once the workflow is approved.

@ilyazub Update: In light of the following: - [ ] recent release of [parallel_tests](https://github.com/serpapi/turbo_tests/issues/76) v5 - [ ] lack of [rake task](https://github.com/serpapi/turbo_tests/issues/75) - [ ] deep incompatibility with [simplecov](https://github.com/serpapi/turbo_tests/issues/24#issuecomment-2706480123) I've...

@ilyazub I think you're going to make a *lot more work* for yourself if you merge the other PRs individually. It was a lot of work to rebase everything to...

@ilyazub FWIW, the PRs I made against my repo where I rebased the original PRs against your repo, are all linked as the nested bullets in the OP description. If...

@chaadow so glad! FYI, I am no longer involved with that fork, and it might disappear at any time, so if you want it in a reliable state, you should...

I switched back to vanilla `parallel_tests` (which recently released a v5). The incompatibility with SimpleCov was insurmountable for me, and I didn't have time to fix it. It's not a...

I _think_ if you configure the command_name to be unique for each parallel process your results will be auto-merged by SimpleCov. ``` SimpleCov.start 'rails' do command_name "RSpec #{Process.pid}" # or...

Yeah, that was the main benefit of turbo_tests. I agree with your analysis 🧐