codecov-commenter
commented
4 months ago :warning: Please install the to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 92.47312% with 7 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 60.01%. Comparing base (
7558577) to head (6a48a28). Report is 79 commits behind head on master.
| Files | Patch % | Lines |
|---|---|---|
| src/reader/mod.rs | 95.50% | 4 Missing :warning: |
| examples/custom_entities.rs | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
| examples/read_buffered.rs | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
| examples/read_texts.rs | 0.00% | 1 Missing :warning: |
:exclamation: Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.
Additional details and impacted files
```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #780 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 61.81% 60.01% -1.81% ========================================== Files 41 41 Lines 16798 16048 -750 ========================================== - Hits 10384 9631 -753 - Misses 6414 6417 +3 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tafia/quick-xml/pull/780/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/tafia/quick-xml/pull/780/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=None) | `60.01% <92.47%> (-1.81%)` | :arrow_down: | 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=None#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.
Mingun
This PR allows us to have attributes in the
Event::End(but they are not accessible viaBytesEnddirectly). As explained in https://github.com/tafia/quick-xml/issues/776#issuecomment-2208078867 we anyway can produce an event which.name()does not valid, so it is better ar least keep it useful for some scenarios. When validation API would be added (I'm working on it) we can validate all events and report an error.Closes #776
When changing parser I noticed, that in one arm we do not set
last_error_offset. I checked if we really cover that lines -- yes, but we actually does not check anything.last_error_offsetwas checked for0, but this is its default value, so was unclear is that code running or not. I improved check and fix the bug that was found due to that.