Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (eba9b55) 97.90% compared to head (fa3107b) 98.03%.

❗ Current head fa3107b differs from pull request most recent head b44a2ef. Consider uploading reports for the commit b44a2ef to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #981      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.90%   98.03%   +0.12%     
+ Complexity      194      179      -15     
============================================
  Files            32       30       -2     
  Lines           813      763      -50     
============================================
- Hits            796      748      -48     
+ Misses           17       15       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Let me think about this, @fredden - I almost fell asleep running mutation tests here!

Let me think about this

No problem; it's your repository/code after all. :)

I almost fell asleep running mutation tests here!

On my set-up, the mutation tests take around 1.5 minutes on the main branch and around 3.5 minutes here. If I put the time-out back to 10 seconds in infection.json, then then tests take around 1 minute, but half of the tests are skipped again (like they already are on the main branch).

Would you be interested in a pull request which just improves test coverage and doesn't add any "ignore infection test" comments and leaves the infection.json as-is?

@fredden

Would you be interested in a pull request which just improves test coverage and doesn't add any "ignore infection test" comments and leaves the infection.json as-is?

Yes, that would be great!

@fredden

Can we close this in favour of #993?

I've rebased this following the merge of #993. It looks like there are a couple of mutants escaping still here. I'll try to find some time to sort these out.

@localheinz you're welcome to close this. I don't particularly like all the "ignore" comments that were needed to get to 100% from this tool, and I recall that you seemed against increasing the timeout to get better coverage/reporting.

Thank you for your work on this, @fredden - but I have decided to close this!