{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6/events","html_url":"https://github.com/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6","id":81017025,"number":6,"title":"Ocveralls and Bisect disagree on coverage metrics.","user":{"login":"simonjbeaumont","id":1125539,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1125539?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont","html_url":"https://github.com/simonjbeaumont","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/simonjbeaumont/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":6,"created_at":"2015-05-26T15:36:52Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T16:22:23Z","closed_at":null,"body":"My scripts generate a single bisect file:\r\n\r\n    $ ls bisect*\r\n    bisect0001.out\r\n\r\nIf I run `bisect-report` I get these values for the coverage:\r\n\r\n    $ bisect-report -I _build bisect0001.out -text report\r\n    $ egrep \"Summary|File|total\" report\r\n    Summary:\r\n    - total: 353/374 (94.39%)\r\n    File 'bindings/ffi_bindings.ml':\r\n    - total: 161/161 (100.00%)\r\n    File 'lib/ffi_generated.ml':\r\n    - total: 35/37 (94.59%)\r\n    File 'lib/ffi_generated_types.ml':\r\n    - total: 55/62 (88.71%)\r\n    File 'lib/pci.ml':\r\n    - total: 57/67 (85.07%)\r\n    File 'lib_test/test_pci.ml':\r\n    - total: 45/47 (95.74%)\r\n\r\nBut when I use ocveralls it generates very different metrics on this build.\r\nHere is the commit SHA for the above:\r\n\r\n    $ git rev-parse HEAD\r\n    e58ecc98ca565a963ec92718e9945b4b84459640\r\n\r\nAnd here is the corresponding build on coveralls.io (you can see it has the\r\nsame git SHA):\r\n\r\nhttps://coveralls.io/builds/2651693\r\n\r\nHere it thinks, for example, that the coverage of `lib/pci.ml` is just 20% but the bisect-report says it is 85%. Also just by visual inspection it is clear that the lines are being marked wrong. For example, the [lines marked in `lib_test/test_pci.ml`](https://coveralls.io/builds/2651693/source?filename=lib_test%2Ftest_pci.ml) are clearly wrong. These lines are clearly executed by the OUnit framework.\r\n\r\nThis was generated using:\r\n\r\n    $ ocveralls --prefix _build bisect* --send\r\n\r\nI've used `--repo_token /dev/null --output ocveralls_dump` to collect the\r\noutput and uploaded that, the bisect report and the bisect file to gist:\r\n\r\nhttps://gist.github.com/simonjbeaumont/85fca139e173b7573763\r\n\r\nAny ideas?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/comments/105983860","html_url":"https://github.com/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6#issuecomment-105983860","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/sagotch/ocveralls/issues/6","id":105983860,"user":{"login":"rleonid","id":6570317,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6570317?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid","html_url":"https://github.com/rleonid","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/rleonid/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-05-27T16:22:23Z","updated_at":"2015-05-27T16:22:23Z","body":"Hi, apologies for the delay (currently traveling).\r\n\r\nI'll look into it more fully when I get back, but I have sneaky suspicion that it is `bisect_ppx` related. I'd guess your issue is probably related to this bisect_ppx [issue](https://github.com/rleonid/bisect_ppx/issues/10) which probably stems from this [one](https://github.com/rleonid/bisect_ppx/issues/7). At some point, probably while pulling out the Camlp4 stuff, I broke the reporting tool that ships with the install. My apologies.\r\n\r\nWhen I get back (next week) I'll make it a priority to fix."}}