Skip to content
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

Update to use source based coverage instead of line based #145

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Mar 11, 2025

Conversation

carolynzech
Copy link
Contributor

@carolynzech carolynzech commented Feb 6, 2025

Updates the extension to use source-based coverage instead of line-based coverage. See #139 for screenshots of how it looks.

  1. a2e37a5 just applies the changes from Add source based coverage for the extension #139 in a single commit, rebased on top of main.
  2. e2e3a40 changes the extension to show the "Get coverage info" button automatically. Before, our documentation instructed a user to go to settings to enable the button. I couldn't find the setting to do that, and I figured if I couldn't find it, our users wouldn't be able to either. I also don't think it makes sense to hide it behind a setting. We can print the warning that it's unstable, but the green/red coverage visual is one of the strongest arguments for using the Kani extension instead of the command line, so we should have this feature front and center.
  3. 69f376b just removes comments and unused code.
  4. 8a99568 updates the documentation to reflect the shift from line-based to source-based coverage, and the removal of the toggle option from e2e3a40.
  5. 05d0246 introduces more custom types, so that we use those instead of any types.

@carolynzech carolynzech changed the title Add coverage Update to use source based coverage instead of line based Feb 6, 2025
@carolynzech carolynzech marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 20:45
The option to toggle this button on/off in settings didn't work, and I think it's better to just show it to people without hiding it in settings.
As long as we print the message that it's unstable (which we do), then there's no risk.
@carolynzech carolynzech marked this pull request as draft February 7, 2025 16:45
@carolynzech carolynzech marked this pull request as ready for review February 7, 2025 17:05
@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 74cc29b into model-checking:main Mar 11, 2025
3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants