Anyone in touch with codecov team ? We need assert(0); and assert(false); lines to be ignored

[Basile B.]

On Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 11:51:26 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 11:17:29 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> I see criticism comming, such as "they cannot handle 
>> assert(/*yeah*/false/**/)", but I think that this does not 
>> matter. The regexes for the two most common cases would be 
>> great to get more accurate reports.
>
> My first question would be whether they have this special case 
> for C/C++ (such as __builtin_unreachable()).
>
> There's nothing to prevent us rewriting the compiler/library 
> code in such a way that it becomes covered.  But I'd have 
> thought that coverage would be the least interesting part of 
> the CI pipeline results.

`"Every line that is not covered should be be considered as a 
bug" changed my life`

More seriously metaprog and templates make coverage results 
really meaningless but if you write classic imperative and 
eventually also structured code without templates coverage means 
more.