Don't report missing branches to missing lines.

[tolomea]

This is a small quality of life suggestion that would make coverage reports easier to read.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Branch coverage can make missing coverage reports difficult to read.

Describe the solution you'd like
Reporting missing branches to missing lines is redundant, if the line didn't get covered then obviously any branches to it didn't either. Omitting these would make coverage reports shorter and easier to read in a lot of cases.

Lets consider one block of 20 lines in one of my files. The missing section of the coverage report looks like this:

496->497, 497, 500->504, 504, 506->510, 510, 512->516, 516

In my humble opinion all of these particular branch reports are unnecessary. Not reporting them would significantly reduce the cognitive load of going through this info and addressing the misses.

497, 504, 510, 516

Of course some branch reports contain useful information. I'm just talking about ones that go to lines that are already going to be reported as missing.

[nedbat]

I see your point :)

[nedbat]

This is now released as part of coverage 5.5.

[tolomea]

Thank you

[leon-matthews]

This fix is very much appreciated, thank you both!