Open mgsloan opened 8 years ago
I was looking for the Cabal code for this, and I noticed that Cabal passes the same hpcdir
for each component that is being built. Would it be better for Stack if Cabal passed a distinct hpcdir
in each case? This seems "more correct" to me but I'd like to see what is best for you guys (even if it's, "Keep the old behavior, because otherwise you guys have to introduce BC handling...")
Unfortunately, that isn't sufficient. Thanks for considering it, though! I've added more details here.
I really would like to know what test code is actual used in my tests. Since unused test code is definitely a code smell!
See #1008 . I'm thinking this would look like adding a
--coverage-exe
flag. Or, some other name, TBH one of the reasons this doesn't exist is that there's no concise name for this flag that obviously corresponds to its behavior.The implementation would look like:
--srcdir
argument to the hpc program - the path to the package associated with the test-suite.--include
argument.Due to some hpc funkiness, these results will not be able to be included in the unified coverage report, or any coverage reports that span multiple packages.