search

paulsengroup / hictk

Blazing fast toolkit to work with .hic and .cool files
MIT License
23 stars 1 forks source link

Improve coverage #263

Closed robomics closed 1 month ago

codecov[bot] commented 1 month ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 78.96%. Comparing base (c28a135) to head (870ce38). Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #263 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 71.94% 78.96% +7.01% ========================================== Files 167 171 +4 Lines 13569 16337 +2768 Branches 1550 2250 +700 ========================================== + Hits 9762 12900 +3138 + Misses 2512 2469 -43 + Partials 1295 968 -327 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/paulsengroup/hictk/pull/263/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=paulsengroup) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [tests | integration](https://app.codecov.io/gh/paulsengroup/hictk/pull/263/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=paulsengroup) | `69.41% <ø> (+7.04%)` | :arrow_up: | | [tests | unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/paulsengroup/hictk/pull/263/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=paulsengroup) | `76.34% <ø> (+24.93%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=paulsengroup#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

robomics commented 1 month ago

To make a long story short, a while ago I updated the CI to use GCC14 instead of GCC13 to compile the binaries instrumented to collect coverage.

That had the unexpected consequence of dropping the project coverage from ~85% to ~72%. Inspecting the line coverage made it obvious that something was wrong with the new data (e.g. lines that have unquestionably been executed show no coverage).

This PR switches things around to use clang's source-based code coverage (link), which seems to produce more reasonable results (even though some of the lines marked as partially covered still look suspicious).