-
Discussion: #396
Add job(s) to CI to collect coverage metrics on the unit tests (i.e. tests ran by `cargo test` in the workspace with no external setup) of all workspace crates that currently exhib…
-
We should run code coverage on statement-distribution and add more tests for branches that aren't already covered.
-
I have integration tests that invoke the binary to test it comprehensively. It would be nice if coverage can be collected from the binary too.
Before opening this issue ticket, I have tested it by …
-
#### Description
This issue occurs with numerous tests ran within a suite of 415 other tests. The vast majority of these tests are of the same complexity as the test shown below (i.e.: simple methods…
-
When I execute `cargo llvm-cov` directly, results seem to be fine. When I execute it in a Nix derivation using `crane.cargoLlvmCov`, it seems like it takes all dependencies into account as well. Howev…
-
Performing `cargo llvm-cov test` on a workspace with excluded packages does not properly exclude packages with both main.rs and lib.rs.
The command:
The html output of `cargo llvm-cov test --wor…
-
There is a workaround currently to run individual tests and get coverage for them:
```bash
cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info -- my::super::model::test_name --exact --nocapture
```
…
-
Hello,
I'm seeing some big discrepancies in code coverage when testing proc macros with trybuild.
Crate structure:
├── src
│ ├── lib.rs
├── tests
│ ├── testcases
│ │ ├── fail
│ │…
-
https://github.com/taiki-e/cargo-llvm-cov/pull/270#issuecomment-1528794104
> It would be great if someone could exhaustively test for compatibility with cargo-nextest options, document and issue wa…
-
How it calculates the number of the lines? When I compare it with grcov reports, grcov is providing proper reports compared to cargo-llvm-cov.