Add support for reading LCOV files #191
Conversation
|
Looks like that change likely won't make it into 1.1. |
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/read-lcov
branch
2 times, most recently
from
05b890f
to
deb6f4b
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #191 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 67.22% 73.59% +6.36%
==========================================
Files 6 6
Lines 296 337 +41
==========================================
+ Hits 199 248 +49
+ Misses 97 89 -8
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
I think we'll get it in. But regardless, the only part of this that depends on it is the sample usage section of the README. |
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/read-lcov
branch
from
deb6f4b
to
d63534a
Compare
|
@fingolfin You seem to be the current de-facto maintainer—does this look good to you? |
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/read-lcov
branch
from
d63534a
to
7e1816a
Compare
vtjnash
force-pushed
the
jn/read-lcov
branch
from
7e1816a
to
d57fc57
Compare
| end | ||
|
|
||
| """ | ||
| readfolder(folder) -> Vector{FileCoverage} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nitpick, but: should it be read_file and read_folder to match process_file and process_folder?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was matching the existing LCOV.writefile with the name LCOV.readfile, and the general base guidelines to avoid underscores. I agree it would be nice to be more consistent, though I'm not sure how to accomplish that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I see -- yeah, when two differing "conventions" clash, this is always a bit nasty. In any case, it doesn't matter much, I was just wondering.
|
@fingolfin updated per review comments, is this good now? |
|
Thank you, this looks good to me now! |
Julia v1.1 is slated to have a new, more flexible code-coverage format (JuliaLang/julia#30381). This is the prep-work (e.g. helper functions) for utilizing that information.