You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Knowing you have a code coverage of 69% is helpful. However it doesn't help improve the code coverage and manually inspecting the coverage files is not very rewarding.
This would also make it easier to find false negatives in coverage.
For it to be useful, some type of lines (multi line comments ...) should not be counted as lines which can or can't be covered but a neutral third thing. If your coverage would change because you delete old comments that would be surprising.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
[caveat: I'm not a maintainer, just want to be helpful]
manually inspecting the coverage files is not very rewarding
https://github.com/JuliaCI/LocalCoverage.jl is maybe a better way to visually inspect code coverage, either using the generated HTML or exporting a standard format to another coverage tool.
For it to be useful, some type of lines (multi line comments ...) should not be counted as lines which can or can't be covered but a neutral third thing.
Many lines are already excluded like this; examples of different kinds of lines behaving unexpectedly could probably use individual issues (although it's possible those belong somewhere else).
Knowing you have a code coverage of 69% is helpful. However it doesn't help improve the code coverage and manually inspecting the coverage files is not very rewarding.
This would also make it easier to find false negatives in coverage.
For it to be useful, some type of lines (multi line comments ...) should not be counted as lines which can or can't be covered but a neutral third thing. If your coverage would change because you delete old comments that would be surprising.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: