Skip to content
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

proposal: cmd/go: omit non-executable "func _()" functions from coverage profiles #36264

zikaeroh opened this issue Dec 24, 2019 · 0 comments


Copy link

@zikaeroh zikaeroh commented Dec 24, 2019

Currently, coverage profiles include coverage for functions that cannot ever run (func _() { ... }). These sorts of functions are commonly used to generate compile-time checks that aren't expected to actually execute. For example, code generated by stringer:

// Code generated by "stringer -type=accessLevel -trimprefix=level"; DO NOT EDIT.

package bot

import "strconv"

func _() {
	// An "invalid array index" compiler error signifies that the constant values have changed.
	// Re-run the stringer command to generate them again.
	var x [1]struct{}
	_ = x[levelUnknown-0]
	_ = x[levelEveryone-1]
	_ = x[levelSubscriber-2]
	_ = x[levelModerator-3]
	_ = x[levelBroadcaster-4]
	_ = x[levelAdmin-99]

const (
	_accessLevel_name_0 = "UnknownEveryoneSubscriberModeratorBroadcaster"
	_accessLevel_name_1 = "Admin"

var (
	_accessLevel_index_0 = [...]uint8{0, 7, 15, 25, 34, 45}

func (i accessLevel) String() string {
	switch {
	case 0 <= i && i <= 4:
		return _accessLevel_name_0[_accessLevel_index_0[i]:_accessLevel_index_0[i+1]]
	case i == 99:
		return _accessLevel_name_1
		return "accessLevel(" + strconv.FormatInt(int64(i), 10) + ")"

Could have a coverage profile of:,17.2 7 0,29.9 1 23,31.80 1 21,33.29 1 2,35.64 1 0

Note the first line, which says 7.10,17.2 7 0, i.e. the _ function has zero lines covered.

I propose that coverage data should be omitted for these _ functions. My rationale:

  • Because these functions show up in coverage profiles, they "fool" commonly used coverage visualization / tracking systems into reporting a lower-than-true percentage. Here's my profile example on coveralls:
  • These functions cannot run; their benefit is already gained at compile time.
  • Due to the simplicity of the coverage profiles (just line info, no context), it's not straightforward to post-process coverage data to get this behavior without changing go test itself.

I'm not sure if this is a proper "proposal", but I didn't think it was exactly a "bug" either. Feel free to retitle as needed.

@gopherbot gopherbot added this to the Proposal milestone Dec 24, 2019
@gopherbot gopherbot added the Proposal label Dec 24, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.