Switch to cargo-llvm-cov for code coverage

[Copilot]

Description

Replaces grcov with cargo-llvm-cov for coverage generation. grcov lacks branch coverage support and has other limitations.

Workflow changes:

• Use nightly toolchain with cargo-llvm-cov
• Set RUSTFLAGS="--cfg coverage_nightly" during coverage runs only
• Remove lcov tools and old coverage environment variables
• Enable branch coverage with --branch flag
• Add --quiet flag to reduce output verbosity

Code changes:

• Enable coverage_attribute feature via #[cfg_attr(coverage_nightly, feature(coverage_attribute))] in lib.rs
• Exclude test modules from coverage with #[cfg_attr(coverage_nightly, coverage(off))] on 13 test modules
• Add coverage_nightly to [lints.rust] in Cargo.toml to declare the custom cfg

Stable builds are unaffected. Coverage exclusions only activate when the cfg is set.

Notes to the reviewers

The coverage_nightly cfg is only set during coverage generation in CI. Regular builds and tests use stable toolchain without this cfg.

Branch coverage is now explicitly enabled, providing more detailed coverage metrics than the previous grcov setup.

Changelog notice

Checklists

All Submissions:

• I've signed all my commits
• I followed the contribution guidelines
• I ran just p before pushing

New Features:

• I've added tests for the new feature
• I've added docs for the new feature

Bugfixes:

• This pull request breaks the existing API
• I've added tests to reproduce the issue which are now passing

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>[coverage] Consider using cargo-llvm-cov</issue_title>
<issue_description>Describe the enhancement

Switch to using llvm-cov in .github/workflows/code_coverage.yml for generating coverage data. For example see bitcoindevkit/bdk#1986.

Impact

• Blocking production usage
• Nice-to-have / UX improvement
• Developer experience / maintainability

Additional context

• grcov has some limitations including lacking support for branch coverage which makes it a less appealing option.
• Noise in coverage scores bdk#1984</issue_description>

<agent_instructions>In order to switch to using cargo-llvm-cov in code_coverage.yml I recommend using a recent version of the nightly compiler in the "Install Rust toolchain" step. Note also that it shouldn't be necessary to include the extra environment variables (RUSTFLAGS, etc) under env: in code_coverage.yml. Additionally, consider enabling the coverage_nightly config attribute globally in lib.rs so we can exclude test modules from coverage reports using #[cfg_attr(coverage_nightly, coverage(off))].</agent_instructions>

Comments on the Issue (you are @copilot in this section)

• Fixes [coverage] Consider using cargo-llvm-cov #366

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.02%. Comparing base (bb9b07f) to head (527037c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #371      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.99%   79.02%   -7.98%     
==========================================
  Files          25       23       -2     
  Lines        8860     5239    -3621     
  Branches        0      242     +242     
==========================================
- Hits         7708     4140    -3568     
+ Misses       1152     1022     -130     
- Partials        0       77      +77     

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	79.02% <ø> (-7.98%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ValuedMammal]

Concept ACK, haven't done an in-depth review.

[ValuedMammal]

@copilot When running the cargo llvm-cov command can you make the output quieter, and also enable --branch coverage, thanks.

[Copilot]

@copilot When running the cargo llvm-cov command can you make the output quieter, and also enable --branch coverage, thanks.

Done in commit 5ffaacc. Added --branch flag for branch coverage and --quiet flag to reduce output verbosity.

[ValuedMammal]

Looks good to me. I'd only suggest redoing the commits to follow the contribution guidelines before merging. The drop in coverage is expected, since we were previously reporting coverage for non-library test code.

[notmandatory]

@ValuedMammal did you trigger copilot to do this one? just curious, I haven't tried using it yet. Seems odd to have @copilot as the author.

[notmandatory]

Looks like this PR needs to be rebased also.

[luisschwab]

@copilot rebase

[luisschwab]

@copilot rebase

doesn't seem to work the same as dependabot

[ValuedMammal]

@ValuedMammal did you trigger copilot to do this one? just curious, I haven't tried using it yet. Seems odd to have copilot as the author.

Yeah I did. It saved me from doing the work but now it's a bit awkward because someone needs to fixup the commits.

[notmandatory]

ACK 527037c

[ValuedMammal]

ACK 527037c

[luisschwab]

ACK 527037c

[nymius]

Why not reusing the lcov.info file to produce a report with genhtml or something similar?
What's the purpose of keeping the html file in the artifacts if the .info file is enough for codecov?
If it is for auditing reasons, why not keeping only the lcov.info files instead of the bloated html?

[nymius]

I would remove the html file generation altogether and keep only the lcov.info as artifacts. If we want to review them later we can pull them locally and generate an html ourselves. This avoids adding the lcov tools suite to the CI.
I can apply the changes if there are no concerns.