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
But if you upload the XML report to codecov.io (results here), you'll see the following:
I don't think it's a bug of codecov, but rather of kover's xml report data. Codecov seems to calculate coverage based on source file coverage, and if we look at the xml report, we'll see the following:
Where line 9 (bar() declaration) is neither covered (ci) nor missed (mi). Moreover, it affects the LINE counter, which is 1 less than it should be (should be 4 covered instructions).
However, if you change the engine to Jacoco and generate reports for the same case, you'll see that everything is correct and that line 9 is covered (ci=1).
This issue might affect more cases than simply an empty body, but I haven't checked anything else.
Reproducer:
Results in the following HTML report:
But if you upload the XML report to codecov.io (results here), you'll see the following:
I don't think it's a bug of codecov, but rather of kover's xml report data. Codecov seems to calculate coverage based on source file coverage, and if we look at the xml report, we'll see the following:
Where line 9 (
bar()
declaration) is neither covered (ci
) nor missed (mi
). Moreover, it affects theLINE
counter, which is 1 less than it should be (should be 4 covered instructions).However, if you change the engine to Jacoco and generate reports for the same case, you'll see that everything is correct and that line 9 is covered (
ci=1
).Runnable reproducer can be found in this repo, there are instructions on how to run it and upload the report.
This was found while investigating #16 as it affects calculated coverage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: