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
undercover reports <100% method coverage even though it appears by eye to be 100% #167
Comments
Thank you for reporting this and sharing both the method snippet and related lcov. I suspect there could be an issue with how line coverage is interpreted in one or more of the multi-line statements... Above bug could potentially live in |
That sounds very likely. A few days ago I encountered a similar issue where undercover was saying that coverage was below 100%, but its output showed all branches visited. I eventually put a multi-line function call onto one line, and then it started to show As for the specifics of how Undercover deals (or does not) with this case, I am afraid that I have no idea. 😂 Let me know if you need any more information. |
Undercover does not show any red in the output, other than the initial "loc" line, and there are no "hits: 0/" or "branches: 0/" lines. Every line that is not "hits: n/a" is green.
Output from undercover:
Relevant lines from lcov file:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: