Have you tried running Coverage report with bisect_ppx #206 to see how bad it is? sweat_smile

It's not that bad! A checkout to a commit 6 months ago would show a way funnier percentage :).

✦8 Ψ bisect-ppx-report summary --per-file                                 
  0.00 %      0/0      src/QCheck_runner.ml
 78.57 %     22/28     src/alcotest/QCheck_alcotest.ml
 63.93 %    927/1450   src/core/QCheck.ml
 67.21 %    859/1278   src/core/QCheck2.ml
 12.50 %     20/160    src/ounit/QCheck_ounit.ml
100.00 %      2/2      src/ppx_deriving_qcheck/QCheck_generators.ml
 87.50 %      7/8      src/ppx_deriving_qcheck/args.ml
 88.89 %      8/9      src/ppx_deriving_qcheck/attributes.ml
 96.33 %    236/245    src/ppx_deriving_qcheck/ppx_deriving_qcheck.ml
100.00 %     53/53     src/ppx_deriving_qcheck/tuple.ml
 64.87 %    181/279    src/runner/QCheck_base_runner.ml
 65.92 %   2315/3512   Project coverage

I was wondering how we could bring it actively into play - rather than just carry the instrumentation lines around:

We can have a badge in the README yes, we also can have a diff percentage in each PR. I also think an alarm when its decreasing will be annoying, the only alarm I'd think would be useful is to detect loss covered lines, but that's practically impossible to do.

Coverage with bisect_ppx #205

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions