-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Better coverage? #1068
Comments
Numerous Personally, I have found coverage on highly-templated C++ code to be somewhat challenging. I also recommend to cut the optimization level way down to |
That being said, my personal experience is that it can take a comparable amount of time to attain In the case mentioned here, however, I do believe that |
It took a bit of detective work, but yes, it's using lcov, and lcov has exclusion macros we can use. I did spot a few genuine cases not covered while browsing through, so maybe I'll see what I can squash. |
Sometimes, well we will ultimately just know better than Then I use (in justified cases - whatever that is decided to mean for our projects)
For multipple lines:
Or for single line(s)
|
See also:
|
I've just briefly looked at the codecov reports (many thanks for doing this @mborland !) to see what needs improving, and I'm seeing a lot of false flags, for example in https://app.codecov.io/gh/boostorg/math/pull/1067/blob/include/boost/math/special_functions/lanczos.hpp line 870 only the final initializer in the list is marked as covered, even though they must have all been executed if one has! Is there anything we can do about this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: