We are at 99.91% coverage, but looking at the misses, I doubt some of them were introduced by PRs that had no coverage (because the Codecov CI complains about these). I think the most likely explanation is that they were 'Indirect changes' in PRs that didn't decrease the total percentage (because the Codecov CI does not complain about these) - I admit I often fail to manually check that on my reviews.
It may be worth adding "pragma no-cover" (if a fix is not obvious) to the remaining cases so that Codecov would complain for any indirect change, as it would make it below 100%.
We are at 99.91% coverage, but looking at the misses, I doubt some of them were introduced by PRs that had no coverage (because the Codecov CI complains about these). I think the most likely explanation is that they were 'Indirect changes' in PRs that didn't decrease the total percentage (because the Codecov CI does not complain about these) - I admit I often fail to manually check that on my reviews.
It may be worth adding "pragma no-cover" (if a fix is not obvious) to the remaining cases so that Codecov would complain for any indirect change, as it would make it below 100%.