Coverage: mark case bodies as branches; don't ignore branches with synthetic spans #18437
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
…nthetic spans Marking bodies of CaseDefs as branches seems like an uncontroversial change, it was probably an oversight. Not ignoring synthetic spans when creating coverage calls in branches seems like a good trade off. There might be some auto-generated `else ()` interpreted as branches, but Scala introduces quite a lot of synthetic trees that wrap non-synthetic trees (e.g. implicit classes). Also, it looks like Scala 2 includes those compiler-generated `else` branches in coverage. (Another possibility here would be to also check if the span is zero extent, but that approach would be different to the Scala 2 one) partial fix for lampepfl#16634
KacperFKorban
force-pushed
the
coverage-case-branches
branch
from
8756a0f to
bcb2053
Compare
sjrd
approved these changes
Aug 22, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Marking bodies of CaseDefs as branches seems like an uncontroversial
change, it was probably an oversight.
Not ignoring synthetic spans when creating coverage calls in branches seems like a good trade off. There might be some auto-generated
else ()interpreted as branches, but Scala introduces quite a lot of synthetic trees that wrap non-synthetic trees (e.g. implicit classes).Also, it looks like Scala 2 includes those compiler-generated
elsebranches in coverage. (Another possibility here would be to also check if the span is zero extent, but that approach would be different to the Scala 2 one)partial fix for #16634