-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 262
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Method level coverage in the xml generated #654
Comments
@Spacetown thanks for considering this in the upcoming release. It will be a good enhancement to have. Any timelines for the upcoming release ? |
No timeline yet. 😄 |
@Spacetown #655 - this did the trick. I am able to view the method level in the xml. |
@ybagarka1 But are the values correct? def splitFunctions(data: FileCoverage) -> List(FileCoverage): |
@Spacetown I think that runs into the problems of nested functions, as outlined in my PR review. In addition to the nested function concern, I'm also not sure how that would deal with static initialization: int foo() { ... }
int variable = initialization_function(); I think we remove compiler-generated functions like initializers/“constructors”, which would stand in the way of proper attribution of lines to functions. |
As mentioned in #655 this is not possible yet. |
The data model now contains the branch rate stated by gcov but since the line rate is also required it's still not possible. |
Issue:
The xml file generated from gcovr is not having method/function level coverage.
Expected:
Function level coverage to be visible in xml
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: