# Code Coverage results seem counterintuitive
**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/code-coverage-results-seem-counterintuitive/20356
**Category:** Tooling
**Tags:** coverage
**Created:** [February 1, 2019, 1:46pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/code-coverage-results-seem-counterintuitive/20356 "2019-02-01T13:46:47Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@migarstka](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/migarstka)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2019, 1:46pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/code-coverage-results-seem-counterintuitive/20356/1 "2019-02-01T13:46:47Z")
Assume I have two files. `main.jl` with some functions and `test.jl` with unit tests. I want to find out which lines in `main.jl` are covered by the unit tests.
**main.jl**
```julia
struct MyStruct
a
b
end
function to_be_covered(x)
a = x
i = 0
for n in eachindex(x)
i += 1
x[n] = 2 * x[n]
end
return x, i
end
get_b(x::MyStruct) = x.b
function to_be_covered_two(x)
a = x.a
b = get_b(x)
return a + b
end
```
**test.jl**
```julia
using Test, LinearAlgebra
include("./main.jl")
r1, r2 = to_be_covered([1; 2])
@testset "All tests" begin
@test r1 == [2; 4]
@test r2 == 2
@test to_be_covered_two(MyStruct(1, 2)) == 3
end
```
If I run `julia --code-coverage=user` (with Julia v.1.0.1) and then `include("test.jl")` I get the following report:
```julia
- struct MyStruct
2 a
- b
- end
-
- function to_be_covered(x)
1 a = x
- i = 0
1 for n in eachindex(x)
- i += 1
2 x[n] = 2 * x[n]
- end
1 return x, i
- end
-
- get_b(x::MyStruct) = x.b
-
- function to_be_covered_two(x)
1 a = x.a
- b = get_b(x)
1 return a + b
- end
```
A few things about the report seem counter-intuitive to me:
1. The line with `b` in `Mystruct ` wasnt executed.
2. The lines `i = 0` and ` i += 1` weren’t executed.
3. The line ` b=get_b(x)` and the corresponding function `get_b(x::MyStruct) = x.b` weren’t executed.
---
### Author:  [@Tamas\_Papp](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Tamas_Papp)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2019, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/code-coverage-results-seem-counterintuitive/20356/2 "2019-02-01T14:16:30Z")
Which version of Julia are you using? Note that coverage calculations are not perfect (but improved a lot with 1.1).
---
### Author:  [@migarstka](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/migarstka)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2019, 2:55pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/code-coverage-results-seem-counterintuitive/20356/3 "2019-02-01T14:55:14Z")
Above result is with Julia v.1.0.1.
With Julia v1.1 I get:
```julia
- struct MyStruct
2 a
- b
- end
-
- function to_be_covered(x)
1 a = x
- i = 0
2 for n in eachindex(x)
2 i += 1
3 x[n] = 2 * x[n]
- end
1 return x, i
- end
-
1 get_b(x::MyStruct) = x.b
-
- function to_be_covered_two(x)
2 a = x.a
1 b = get_b(x)
1 return a + b
- end
```
which seems to capture more of the lines