• Home
  • Features
  • Pricing
  • Docs
  • Announcements
  • Sign In

bemanproject / expected / 38093620416
98%

Build:
DEFAULT BRANCH: main
Ran 10 Oct 2026 11:05PM UTC
Jobs 1
Files 3
Run time 1min
Badge
Embed ▾
README BADGES
x

If you need to use a raster PNG badge, change the '.svg' to '.png' in the link

Markdown

Textile

RDoc

HTML

Rst

10 Oct 2026 11:02PM UTC coverage: 95.522%. Remained the same
38093620416

push

github

web-flow
Generate [expected] wording from the annotated headers via specgen (#94)

## Summary

- Annotate `unexpected.hpp`, `bad_expected_access.hpp`, and
`expected.hpp` with `//!`
[specgen](https://github.com/steve-downey/specgen) docblocks (Effects,
Constraints, Mandates, Returns, Throws, Remarks) for every declaration,
sourced from the real standard text for already-standardized members and
from `papers/expected-new.tex` for the expected-over-references
additions (`unexpected<E&>`, `expected<T&,E>`). `specgen generate
--validate` passes cleanly on all three headers.
- Add `papers/wording/generate.sh` (wired up as `make wording`) to turn
those docblocks into wording, landed two ways:
- `papers/wording/fragments/*.tex` — one file per top-level clause, for
`\input` into a standalone paper.
- `papers/wording/expected.tex` — the same content concatenated in real
standard clause order at the draft's own absolute numbering, with no
`\rSec2[expected]` wrapper and no `\input` directives — the basis for a
patch to `source/utilities.tex` in the actual C++ working draft
([cplusplus/draft](https://github.com/cplusplus/draft)), where
`[expected.general]` and `[expected.syn]` stay untouched (hand-authored
prose, not generated from any one declaration) and only the subclauses
from `[expected.unexpected]` on are replaced/extended.

The headers are now a source of truth specgen can turn into wording
directly, instead of the wording and the implementation being able to
drift apart.

## Test plan

- [x] `specgen generate --validate` passes on all three headers
- [x] `cmake --build --preset gcc-debug`
- [x] `ctest --preset gcc-debug` — 1178/1178 tests pass
- [ ] Reviewer spot-check: does `papers/wording/expected.tex` read
correctly against the current `[expected]` clause and
`papers/expected-new.tex`?

5 of 6 new or added lines in 2 files covered. (83.33%)

10 existing lines in 1 file now uncovered.

704 of 737 relevant lines covered (95.52%)

25.09 hits per line

Uncovered Changes

Lines Coverage ∆ File
1
95.53
0.0% include/beman/expected/expected.hpp

Coverage Regressions

Lines Coverage ∆ File
10
95.53
0.0% include/beman/expected/expected.hpp
Jobs
ID Job ID Ran Files Coverage
1 38093620416.1 10 Oct 2026 11:05PM UTC 3
95.52
GitHub Action Run
Source Files on build 38093620416
  • Tree
  • List 3
  • Changed 3
  • Source Changed 3
  • Coverage Changed 3
Coverage ∆ File Lines Relevant Covered Missed Hits/Line
  • Back to Repo
  • Github Actions Build #38093620416
  • 46bc22bc on github
  • Prev Build on main (#33709088651)
  • Next Build on main (#38983632894)
  • Delete
STATUS · Troubleshooting · Open an Issue · Sales · Support · CAREERS · ENTERPRISE · START FREE TRIAL · SCHEDULE DEMO
ANNOUNCEMENTS · TWITTER · TOS & SLA · Supported CI Services · What's a CI service? · Automated Testing

© 2026 Coveralls, Inc