Skip to content

Report 0% coverage for untested files in a project (i.e., files matching some glob) #58887

Closed
Closed
Report 0% coverage for untested files in a project (i.e., files matching some glob)#58887
Labels
coverageIssues and PRs related to Node.js code coverage support.feature requestIssues requesting new Node.js features.test_runnerIssues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem.

Description

@ethanresnick
ethanresnick
opened on Jun 29, 2025

What is the problem this feature will solve?

Right now, the test runner with --experimental-code-coverage doesn't seem to include an entry in the report for files that were not tested at all — i.e., that didn't get loaded during the test execution — even if those files were matched by a --test-coverage-include glob.

This can make the report very misleading, as the reported "all files" coverage percentage can easily go up, even when actual coverage has gone down (i.e.,. because a new file was introduced with no tests at all).

I know this has been raised at least twice before, but there didn't seem to be any issue for it on the issue tracker, so I wanted to raise it here.

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

There should be some way to have these untested files show up in the report, but report 0% coverage. The effect (although not necessarily the implementation) would be similar to istanbul's --all option.

I'm not wedded to a particular API, but one reasonable option might be to have a --test-coverage-include-all flag that makes sure that any file matched by --test-coverage-include shows up in the report.

What alternatives have you considered?

As mentioned here, it's possible to sort of simulate this effect by passing a glob to node --test that covers all the files in the project. However, every file then gets run as a test file, which is a lot of extra overhead, as these files don't actually have any tests.

Activity

  1. ethanresnick
    added
    feature requestIssues requesting new Node.js features.
    on Jun 29, 2025
  2. github-project-automation
    added this to Node.js feature requestson Jun 29, 2025
  3. github-project-automation
    moved this to Awaiting Triage in Node.js feature requestson Jun 29, 2025

  4. avivkeller commented on Jul 20, 2025

    @avivkeller
    avivkeller
    on Jul 20, 2025
    Member

    I know this has been raised at least twice before, but there didn't seem to be any issue for it on the issue tracker, so I wanted to raise it here.

    We moved our discussion tracker to different repository, so that link broke.

    The TL;DR of that issue, if I recall correctly, was:

    This inconsistency comes from V8. V8 doesn't include unimported files in the coverage report.

  5. avivkeller commented on Jul 20, 2025

    @avivkeller
    avivkeller
    on Jul 20, 2025
    Member

    Although, if we found a way to do this, definitely +1, it's the only blocker keeping us on c8 in some web repositories.

  6. github-actions commented on Jan 17, 2026

    @github-actions
    github-actionsbot
    on Jan 17, 2026 – with GitHub Actions
    Contributor

    There has been no activity on this feature request for 5 months. To help maintain relevant open issues, please add the never-stale Issues and PRs exempt from automated stale handling. label or close this issue if it should be closed. If not, the issue will be automatically closed 6 months after the last non-automated comment.
    For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.

  7. github-actions
    added
    staleIssues and PRs marked stale due to inactivity and scheduled for automatic closure.
    on Jan 17, 2026

  8. github-actions commented on Feb 16, 2026

    @github-actions
    github-actionsbot
    on Feb 16, 2026 – with GitHub Actions
    Contributor

    There has been no activity on this feature request and it is being closed. If you feel closing this issue is not the right thing to do, please leave a comment.

    For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.

  9. github-actions
    closed this as not plannedon Feb 16, 2026

  10. mbarneyjr commented on Feb 16, 2026

    @mbarneyjr
    mbarneyjr
    on Feb 16, 2026

    I don't think this issue should be closed.

  11. BridgeAR
    reopened this on Feb 16, 2026
  12. pmarchini
    added
    never-staleIssues and PRs exempt from automated stale handling.
    on Feb 16, 2026
  13. JakobJingleheimer
    added
    test_runner-agendaIssues and PRs to discuss during Test Runner team meetings.
    on Jul 29, 2026
  14. avivkeller
    added
    coverageIssues and PRs related to Node.js code coverage support.
    test_runnerIssues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem.
    on Jul 29, 2026

  15. 1 remaining item

  16. avivkeller
    moved this from Awaiting Triage to In Progress in Node.js feature requestson Jul 29, 2026
  17. avivkeller
    removed
    staleIssues and PRs marked stale due to inactivity and scheduled for automatic closure.
    never-staleIssues and PRs exempt from automated stale handling.
    test_runner-agendaIssues and PRs to discuss during Test Runner team meetings.
    on Jul 29, 2026

  18. JakobJingleheimer commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @JakobJingleheimer
    JakobJingleheimer
    on Jul 29, 2026
    Member

    Thanks for this!

    We discussed this in today's meeting, and the consensus was: A test should contain at least 1 case / sub-test

    • a test that fails to contain at least 1 test should
      • be marked todo (and reported as TODO etc)
      • otherwise, fail (it's clearly a mistake, and not failing hides that mistake)
    • a test that contains at least one case should report the result of that (pass, fail, skip, todo, etc)

    This is a breaking change, so we're proposing immediately adding a flag (eg --test-fail-on-empty) to opt into this behaviour now, and then remove the flag and make that the default behaviour in the next major.

  19. cjihrig commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @cjihrig
    cjihrig
    on Jul 29, 2026
    Contributor

    Hey y'all! The test runner team just discussed this, and we are on board with:

    1. --test-coverage-all: Match everything, land in a semver minor
    2. Make --test-coverage-all default: semver-major

    Code coverage is still experimental. There isn't really a need for all of that extra process.

  20. cjihrig commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @cjihrig
    cjihrig
    on Jul 29, 2026
    Contributor

    It was also an intentional decision to allow the test runner CLI to execute files without forcing the use of node:test in those files. If you are planning to enforce that, it would be nice to allow opting out of that new behavior.

  21. JakobJingleheimer commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @JakobJingleheimer
    JakobJingleheimer
    on Jul 29, 2026
    Member

    it would be nice to allow opting out of that new behavior.

    I think we settled on that in the meeting (the default would be "on", and there'd be an option to turn it "off").

  22. cjihrig commented on Jul 29, 2026

    @cjihrig
    cjihrig
    on Jul 29, 2026
    Contributor

    I should have mentioned this in my previous comment, but https://node-tap.org/node-test-interop/ is an example of integrating with node:test or --test without using both.

  23. avivkeller
    linked a pull request that will close this issuetest_runner: add support for --test-coverage-include-all #64830on Jul 31, 2026
  24. avivkeller
    closed this as completedin b7d29feon Jul 31, 2026
  25. pull
    added a commit that references this issue on Jul 31, 2026

    test_runner: add support for --test-coverage-include-all

    b7d29fe
  26. aduh95
    added 3 commits that reference this issue on Aug 3, 2026

    test_runner: add support for --test-coverage-include-all

    cf50af5

    test_runner: add support for --test-coverage-include-all

    dccee04

    test_runner: add support for --test-coverage-include-all

    a646319
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    coverageIssues and PRs related to Node.js code coverage support.feature requestIssues requesting new Node.js features.test_runnerIssues and PRs related to the test runner subsystem.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions