Codecov Report

Merging #17 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@         Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #17   +/-   ##
====================================
  Coverage       0%    0%           
====================================
  Files           3     3           
  Lines         118   120    +2     
====================================
- Misses        118   120    +2

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f3963c3...a9b75aa. Read the comment docs.

Codecov Report

Merging #17 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

@@         Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #17   +/-   ##
====================================
  Coverage       0%    0%           
====================================
  Files           3     3           
  Lines         118   127    +9     
====================================
- Misses        118   127    +9

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f3963c3...8cef563. Read the comment docs.

Biggest issue here is whether to apply the line-offset correction for moved methods. One could check whether lineinfo.file is the same as the file returned from whereis, but I worry about this getting confused by various path issues (e.g., similar to #16) and failing to apply the correction when it should. The workaround here is robust if lineinfo isa Core.LineInfoNode but doesn't work if it's a LineNumberNode.

Thoughts? Should I at least check the basename?

(please disregard my review/approval. I have not looked closely and pressed the wrong button)

OK, this seems to strike a reasonable balance between precision and fragility. I'll merge once tests pass.