@Mathilde
(I just saw this thread today)
Caraya is not well suited for automated code coverage calculation as it executes at the VI level, not the application level. There is no inspection performed and the framework is all geared towards individual assertions.
An application could be developed, on top of Caraya, to inspect code and report on the minimum number of assertion tests to be performed to cover all conditions, but it would probably still be opened to interpretation since different assertions can be done on the same case to test all the limit conditions.
As an example of this statement, let's consider the number of assertions needed to fully test a single "enum" value in your screenshot. Just from the image you provide, I can think of those assertions:
"Numeric 2" is equal to 0
"Numeric 1" is same sign as "Numeric 2" and not equal 0.
"Numeric 1" is opposite sign from "Numeric 2" and not equal 0.
"Numeric 1" is equal to NaN
"Numeric 2" is equal to NaN
Those five assertions are possibly just a subset of the range of assertions to run, but they are in no mean related to achieving a 83.3% of coverage based on the following computation: "5 tests for 6 different paths". Indeed, the same limits should be tested for all 6 paths, which means that 30 assertions are the base for achieving 100% coverage. But this is really depending on the algorithm in the black box (case structures) because there is no way to determine the number of assertions needed for full coverage unless one knows the algorithm under test, unless the assertions happen directly in each case of the production code...
Each generated test vector would need to be tested with multiple assertion results. If Caraya could aggregate more information that would be useful to such a wrapper application, that could certainly be entertained. At the moment, the call chain, assert name and test names are pretty much all that is available.