On 23/05/2012 11:33, David Turner wrote:
On 23/05/2012 11:22, Andres Löh wrote:
I've not looked at the .tix file, but a few tests seem to confirm what I'd suspect. For derived instances, you have to cover *all* methods, otherwise the type class will be shown as not covered.
Ok, I see. It's going to take me a while to cover all instances of this!
For the datatype, your use of field labels causes GHC to generate accessor functions. These aren't covered by your tests. Therefore the datatype shows as not completely covered.
Ah, yes, that makes sense.
Further to that, however: http://hpaste.org/68900 The extra test case (line 15) causes HPC not to highlight the Path (line 18) indicating it is now used, even though there are uncovered accessors. I'm confused. Thanks in advance, David