fix: scoverage statement's line number should be 1-base #18932
Merged
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
| @@ -97,7 +97,9 @@ class InstrumentCoverage extends MacroTransform with IdentityDenotTransformer: | |||
| id = id, | |||
| start = pos.start, | |||
| end = pos.end, | |||
| line = pos.line, | |||
| // +1 to account for the line number starting at 1 | |||
| // the internal line number is 0-base https://github.com/lampepfl/dotty/blob/18ada516a85532524a39a962b2ddecb243c65376/compiler/src/dotty/tools/dotc/util/SourceFile.scala#L173-L176 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should also add parameter documention in Statement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks! do you mean, the parameter document that says line in Statement is 1-base ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean add something like this
/** A statement that can be invoked, and thus counted as "covered" by code coverage tools.
*
* @param location ...
* ...
* @param line 1-indexed line number
* ...
*/
case class Statement(
location: Location,
id: Int,
start: Int,
end: Int,
line: Int,
...
|
Will fix CoverageTest too |
Also, rebase and regenerate the check files. There are some conflicts with one of my PRs, sorry. |
tanishiking
force-pushed
the
fix-instrument-line
branch
from
9cfda90 to
c966b5d
Compare
fix scala#18916 This PR makes scoverage statements' line number 1-base, instead of 0-base, as @tarao described. It would be ideal if we could find specifications of many of coverage report fomats (such as Jacoco XML, cobertura.xml, lcov.txt...) and confirm most of them expect the line numbers 1-base. However, it seems there's no formal specification for them AFAIK. Since we've been using 1-base so far in Scala2 and it hasn't been a problem, so I guess it's OK to change to 1-base (and most of coverage report format and visualizer expect 1-base maybe). I believe it should be reporter / aggregator's responsibility to adjust the line numbers if some coverage format expects 0-base. Add doc comment to Statement @param line that it's 1-base Update scoverage.check files sbt> scala3-compiler-bootstrapped / Test / testCompilation --update-checkfiles
tanishiking
force-pushed
the
fix-instrument-line
branch
from
c966b5d to
86aaea9
Compare
nicolasstucki
approved these changes
Nov 17, 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.
fix #18916
This PR makes scoverage statements' line number 1-base, instead of 0-base. FYI @tarao
It would be ideal if we could find specifications of many of coverage report fomats (such as Jacoco XML, cobertura.xml, lcov.txt...) and confirm most of them expect the line numbers 1-base.
However, it seems there's no formal specification for them AFAIK. Since we've been using 1-base so far in Scala2 and it hasn't been a problem, so I guess it's OK to change to 1-base (and most of coverage report format and visualizer expect 1-base probably).
I believe we should make coverage report 1-base by default, and it should be reporter / aggregator's responsibility to adjust the line numbers if some coverage format expects 0-base.
I tested on https://github.com/scoverage/sbt-scoverage-samples with HTML reporter
3.3.1
In the latter picture, they are "3" even though the actual line number is 4, because
scoverage.coverage's line number as it islinenumber without adjustment (to 1-base)3.4.0-RC1-bin-SNAPSHOT
seems ok 👍