Check if we should implement merging of FN, FNDA, FNF, FNH, BRF, BRH, LF, LH

mweibel / lcov-result-merger

Merges multiple lcov results into one

MIT License

102 stars 22 forks source link

Check if we should implement merging of FN, FNDA, FNF, FNH, BRF, BRH, LF, LH #14

Open mweibel opened 8 years ago

mweibel commented 8 years ago

See man page for info.

Apparently istanbul is generating those identifiers nowadays.

jparra5 commented 6 years ago

@mweibel I can provide an lcov file:

lcov.info.zip

I just noticed that lcov-result-merger was stripping the LF & LH fields when I merged two files together.

mweibel commented 6 years ago

Thanks @jparra5. I'll look into it as soon as I find some time. Obviously I'd be open for a PR too :)

mweibel commented 6 years ago

Sorry, forgot about this. It's back on my radar :)

cellog commented 6 years ago

is this project dead now?

mweibel commented 6 years ago

No, I just don't have very much time at the moment. Feel free to send PRs, I'd be happy to review them.

sbhark commented 6 years ago

Hi there, I was just wondering if there is progress in the implementation of this issue? Thanks,

mweibel commented 6 years ago

Feel free to send PRs, I'd be happy to review them.

sbhark commented 6 years ago

Alright, will do.

floric commented 6 years ago

Yeah, LF seems to be important. I'd like to use the merger together with lcov-summary. But this currently fails with NaNs because of the missing LF... :O

elashpear commented 5 years ago

I am working around this now by using official lcov binary to merge reports as described at https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Lcov#Combine_lcov_tracefiles