[Bug]: v8 coverage provider has too much tradeoffs to be actually reliable

[ericmorand]

Version

30.0.0-alpha.6-dev

Steps to reproduce

Use the v8 coverage provider.

Expected behavior

I expect the coverage report to reflect the actual coverage state of the project.

Actual behavior

The coverage report is likely to not reflect the actual coverage state of the project.

Additional context

An issue was opened years ago about the v8 coverage provider tradeoffs: #11188. It was never followed by actions, but it should have been. The points raised in this issue are valid: the v8 coverage provider is not reliable and can't be used to test the coverage of a project: it actually gives a false sense of success by ignoring a lot of true positive, or adding non relevant covered lines and non-existent covered functions that make the coverage result falsely good.

I propose that it is entirely rewritten to bring back the accuracy and correctness of istanbul while using V8 coverage data. I created a PR that adds a coverage provider fueled by One Double Zero, but I think we should go as far as making odz the official v8 coverage provider.

Environment

System:
    OS: Linux 6.8 Ubuntu 22.04.2 LTS 22.04.2 LTS (Jammy Jellyfish)
    CPU: (2) x64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8750H CPU @ 2.20GHz
  Binaries:
    Node: 18.20.4 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v18.20.4/bin/node
    npm: 10.7.0 - ~/.nvm/versions/node/v18.20.4/bin/npm