Wrong reporting in some curcumpstances.

[hickscorp]

I'm not sure whether this is an actual issue or something I'm missing. Feel free to close this issue in the later case.

Somehow, ExCoveralls reports 0 hits on a with keyword usage:

[parroty]

Thanks for the report. It might be related to the #59, and haven't been able to find good ways to resolve the issue.

One possible workaround is to define with statement as stop words. It makes the matching statements as not related instead of not covered.

• https://github.com/parroty/excoveralls#coverallsjson

[hickscorp]

@parroty It indeed seems to be the same issue. Appologies for the noise, closing this one. Searching the issues using with as a keyword yelded too many results and I didn't see this other issue.