[Haskell-cafe] Stack & Test Coverage

[Hilco Wijbenga]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:14 PM Ben Gamari <ben at smart-cactus.org> wrote:
>
> On September 4, 2019 4:32:29 AM GMT+02:00, Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I have a very simple
> >
> >newtype Index = Index Int deriving (Eq, Ord, Enum)
> >
> >for which I have written tests with both HSpec and QuickCheck.
> >Specifically, I have written tests for "==", "/=", "compare" (for all
> >of EQ, LT, and GT), and "toEnum" & "fromEnum". So I thought I had
> >_very_ thoroughly covered that one line. :-)
> >
> >Unfortunately, after running "stack clean ; stack test --coverage" I
> >see in the HTML report that only Eq has been tested and that Ord and
> >Enum have _no_ coverage (i.e. "never executed").
> >
> >(The module also has some regular functions and an explicit Show
> >instance [all with tests] and those are apparently fine. So coverage
> >does seem to work but not the way I expect?)
> >
> >What am I doing wrong?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Hilco
> >_______________________________________________
> >Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> >To (un)subscribe, modify options or view archives go to:
> >http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> >Only members subscribed via the mailman list are allowed to post.
>
> This sounds like it may be a ghc bug. Can you open a ticket at https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc?

Well, I wasn't expecting that. :-)

I created a tiny test project with just the newtype and even removed
Enum. I tried all LTSs listed at https://www.stackage.org from
LST-3.22 all the way up to nightly-2019-09-04 and they all behave the
same way. (Stack is _awesome_ for this.) I also tried "data" instead
of "newtype". That made no difference.

Are you sure this might be a GHC bug? Surely someone would have
noticed sometime during the last 4 years? It would have been in GHC
7.10.2 already. Anyway, if "yes" then I'll create an issue. It should
be very easy to reproduce. (I don't mean to doubt you but it's rather
rare in software that it's "the compiler" and not "the developer". :-)
I don't want to waste anyone's time.)