codecov-commenter
commented
10 months ago Codecov Report
Attention: 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Comparison is base (
6565b3a) 92.02% compared to head (369bdbe) 92.09%. Report is 1 commits behind head on master.
:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #1060 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 92.02% 92.09% +0.07% ========================================== Files 93 93 Lines 9883 9882 -1 Branches 2311 2325 +14 ========================================== + Hits 9095 9101 +6 + Misses 788 781 -7 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/johnynek/bosatsu/pull/1060?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=P.+Oscar+Boykin) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [.../src/main/scala/org/bykn/bosatsu/rankn/Infer.scala](https://app.codecov.io/gh/johnynek/bosatsu/pull/1060?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=P.+Oscar+Boykin#diff-Y29yZS9zcmMvbWFpbi9zY2FsYS9vcmcvYnlrbi9ib3NhdHN1L3JhbmtuL0luZmVyLnNjYWxh) | `96.83% <91.66%> (+0.58%)` | :arrow_up: | ... and [6 files with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/johnynek/bosatsu/pull/1060/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=P.+Oscar+Boykin):umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
it is very concerning that changing these directions (widening instead of narrowing) doesn't require changing any tests.
I should probably try to find some example that fails in the previous direction... I guess it is actually very rare for subsCheck to not be just unifying the code into a single type rather than instantiating.
Or it could be that we just don't have any way of failing after coerce since we just assume the types are right after that so changing them can't change the tests... but it seems like we should be able to find some code that didn't type before that does now?