Initial commit of rebased branch coverage.

[EmbeddedDevops1]

PR Type

enhancement, tests

---

Description

• Added support for branch coverage calculation in coverage report parsing methods across different formats (Cobertura, LCOV, JaCoCo).
• Updated CoverageProcessor to return branch coverage percentages alongside line coverage.
• Enhanced UnitTestValidator to incorporate branch coverage in coverage validation and reporting.
• Modified shell scripts to enable branch coverage in LCOV report generation for C and C++ CLI projects.
• Updated test cases to validate the new branch coverage functionality, ensuring comprehensive test coverage.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Enhancement	CoverageProcessor.py Add branch coverage support to coverage parsing                    cover_agent/CoverageProcessor.py Added branch coverage calculation to coverage report parsing methods. Updated return types to include branch coverage percentage. Enhanced parsing logic for different coverage report formats. +102/-37 UnitTestValidator.py Integrate branch coverage into validation logic                    cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py Integrated branch coverage into coverage validation logic. Updated methods to handle branch coverage data. +10/-7    build_and_test_with_coverage.sh Enable branch coverage in LCOV for C CLI                                  templated_tests/c_cli/build_and_test_with_coverage.sh Enabled branch coverage in LCOV report generation. +3/-3      build_and_test_with_coverage.sh Enable branch coverage in LCOV for C++ CLI                              templated_tests/cpp_cli/build_and_test_with_coverage.sh Enabled branch coverage in LCOV report generation. +3/-3      test_all.sh Add branch coverage flag to integration tests                        tests_integration/test_all.sh Added branch coverage flag to pytest command. +1/-1
Tests	test_CoverageProcessor.py Add tests for branch coverage parsing                                        tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py Added tests for branch coverage parsing. Updated existing tests to include branch coverage assertions. +155/-25 test_UnitTestValidator.py Update tests for branch coverage validation                            tests/test_UnitTestValidator.py Updated tests to validate branch coverage integration. Added assertions for branch coverage in test cases. +14/-8

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 4 🔵🔵🔵🔵⚪

🧪 PR contains tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Code Complexity The parse_coverage_data_for_class method has become more complex with the addition of branch coverage calculation. Consider splitting the method into smaller, more focused methods for better maintainability. Error Handling The branch coverage parsing in parse_coverage_report_lcov may fail if the BRDA line format is unexpected. Consider adding more robust error handling for malformed branch coverage data. Code Duplication Similar branch coverage handling code is repeated across multiple test methods. Consider extracting common branch coverage validation logic into a helper method.

[qodo-merge-pro]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
Possible issue	Initialize class attributes before first use to prevent runtime errors Add initialization of self.current_branch_coverage in the class to prevent potential AttributeError if accessed before being set. cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py [300] +if not hasattr(self, 'current_branch_coverage'): + self.current_branch_coverage = 0.0 self.current_branch_coverage = branch_coverage Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8 Why: This is an important defensive programming practice that prevents potential AttributeError exceptions if the branch_coverage attribute is accessed before being set, improving code robustness.	8
	Test case should validate handling of malformed branch coverage data to ensure robustness The test_parse_coverage_data_for_class_with_branch_coverage test case is missing validation for the case where branch coverage data is malformed. Add assertions to verify the method handles invalid branch coverage data gracefully. tests/test_CoverageProcessor.py [523-540] def test_parse_coverage_data_for_class_with_branch_coverage(self): """ Test parse_coverage_data_for_class with branch coverage data. """ xml_str = """<class> <lines> <line number="1" hits="1" branch="true" condition-coverage="50%(1/2)"/> <line number="2" hits="0"/> + <line number="3" hits="1" branch="true" condition-coverage="invalid"/> </lines> </class>""" cls = ET.fromstring(xml_str) processor = CoverageProcessor("fake_path", "app.py", "lcov", use_report_coverage_feature_flag=False) lines_covered, lines_missed, line_coverage_percentage, branch_coverage_percentage = processor.parse_coverage_data_for_class(cls) - assert lines_covered == [1], "Expected line 1 to be covered" + assert lines_covered == [1, 3], "Expected lines 1 and 3 to be covered" assert lines_missed == [2], "Expected line 2 to be missed" - assert line_coverage_percentage == 0.5, "Expected 50% line coverage" + assert line_coverage_percentage == 2/3, "Expected 66.7% line coverage" assert branch_coverage_percentage == 0.5, "Expected 50% branch coverage" Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion improves test coverage by adding validation for malformed branch coverage data, which is important for ensuring the code handles invalid input gracefully. This helps prevent potential runtime errors.	7
General	Include branch coverage metrics in the coverage report output for completeness Add branch coverage to the code coverage report string since it's now being tracked. This ensures consistent reporting of both line and branch coverage metrics. cover_agent/UnitTestValidator.py [731] -self.code_coverage_report = f"Lines covered: {lines_covered}\nLines missed: {lines_missed}\nPercentage covered: {round(percentage_covered * 100, 2)}%" +self.code_coverage_report = f"Lines covered: {lines_covered}\nLines missed: {lines_missed}\nLine coverage: {round(percentage_covered * 100, 2)}%\nBranch coverage: {round(branch_covered * 100, 2)}%" Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: The suggestion improves consistency and completeness of reporting by including branch coverage metrics alongside line coverage, making the coverage report more informative and aligned with the PR's branch coverage integration.	7

💡 Need additional feedback ? start a PR chat

[draialexis]

Is support for branch coverage currently part of this product's roadmap?

[EmbeddedDevops1]

Is support for branch coverage currently part of this product's roadmap?

It is but we're currently undergoing some refactoring right now to make that a bit easier. Stay tuned!

...Or feel free to put up a PR 😄

[draialexis]

that totally tracks :) thanks for the updateOn 7 Jan 2025, at 05:15, Embedded DevOps ***@***.***> wrote: Is support for branch coverage currently part of this product's roadmap? It is but we're currently undergoing some refactoring right now to make that a bit easier. Stay tuned! ...Or feel free to put up a PR 😄 —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>