Broken coverage report

[shnewto]

Looks like it's an issue with the gcrov action https://github.com/actions-rs/grcov/issues/142

Making an issue so if it takes very long to resolve on the gcrov side, we can track progress on however we decide to address it.

[shnewto]

LOL that repo hasn't been touched in 3 years, I'll wager it's something that'll take a while if we don't tackle it 😂

[shnewto]

It looks like cargo-tarpaulin is still going strong, might start in on what it looks like to go back to it for coverage. It was a while ago, but I remember there were a pile of lines reported as uncovered that gcrov saw were covered... i do feel like checking in on the state of that, maybe it's been resolved 😄 If not though, a pile of lines reported as uncovered is better than a broken build!

[shnewto]

looks like cargo-tarpaulin is reporting more coverage than gcrov now

|| Uncovered Lines:
|| src/append_vec.rs: 86-87, 94-95, 102-103
|| src/earley/mod.rs: 125, 253-254
|| src/earley/traversal.rs: 111
|| src/error.rs: 25-26
|| src/grammar.rs: 286, 294-295, 304
|| src/production.rs: 63-64
|| src/tracing.rs: 45
|| Tested/Total Lines:
|| src/append_vec.rs: 27/33
|| src/earley/grammar.rs: 21/21
|| src/earley/input_range.rs: 24/24
|| src/earley/mod.rs: 108/111
|| src/earley/traversal.rs: 84/85
|| src/error.rs: 10/12
|| src/expression.rs: 52/52
|| src/grammar.rs: 162/166
|| src/parsers.rs: 37/37
|| src/production.rs: 32/34
|| src/slice_iter.rs: 16/16
|| src/term.rs: 22/22
|| src/tracing.rs: 1/2
||
96.91% coverage, 596/615 lines covered

[shnewto]

😅 the tarpaulin action hasn't been updated in a timespan similar to gcrov. there's plenty of docs on GH actions w/o the actions-rs/tarpaulin so it's still a reasonable option I think, just might take a bit of tweaking... also looking at the roadmap for tarpaulin, it says test branch coverage is still todo, so there's probably still going to be some lines that are covered but aren't seen by the coverage report

[shnewto]

looks like the tarpaulin action takes us from 91.06% to 91.49% 😄

[shnewto]

woah @CrockAgile I really like the looks of that PR (#132) to use LLVM coverage to replace gcrov. I'll vote for that for sure